[sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"Abolis
"Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs""
"Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>" wrote:
| > If you point out that proposal itself, my answer will be
| > because "100% discount of PAF for all allocations" will be
| > simpler than "90% discount of PAF only for IPv4 infrastructure
| > based evaluation".
| >
| > If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a
| > small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single*
| > /21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's
| > total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K. This is
| > a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR
| > or by the NIR. PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but
| > it isn't any longer.
| >
| > Am I answering?
|
| yes, at last!
Happy to hear :-) .
| so the 'complexity' is really the size of the
| number, not that the rirs can not calculate a simple step
| function.
|
Please see my FIRST answer - complexiety is just that of
formula. But I think you are looking at the second one, which
is more fundamental and long-term.
I suppose you've already found that proposal itself doesn't
have a very big impact.
| while i suspect i could sympathize with the costs when looked
| at as absolute bhat/dollar/dong/yen amounts, US$64k ain't bad
| for more address space than all of ipv4. especially as i
| suspect an ipv4 /16 will be going for upwards of US$1m in a
| few years.
|
| but now that we're down to the money, what do you think a
| reasonable curve, or step function, would be? it sounds as
| if stephan (and others from whom i have email) are concerned
| about how it goes forward. so discussing a replacement
| proposal may help alleviate some of the disagreement. then
| again, it may not; some of us are just disagreeable :-).
|
The problem is the both for APNIC and NIRs the current PAF
scheme is difficult to handle - to budget and to make a fee
schedule for NIR's LIRs. It varies time to time.
You can see Paul Wilson's slides at NIR SIG about a possible
alternative NIR fee schedule.
Currently PAF and membership fee from NIRs contribute around
10% of APNIC's annual revenue. - Here the basic idea is just
collecting the similar level of revenue from NIRs with more
similar fee structure with ordinary membership fee with
a step function.
Paul's idea is counting NIR's LIRs, first to calcurate as
if they were all APNIC direct members, then to adjust it to
have a similar level of fee. In his presentation 40% of
ordinary fee equals current NIR's annual and PA fees.
JPNIC proposed another before, that was just multiplying
membership fee to the similar level. JPNIC is an XL with
USD40K annual, then x5 will equal to our current total
annual payment.
Just in case please note NIRs are not just discounting -
they have their own business - APNIC fee is just several
percents of annual budget in case of JPNIC IP Department.
These two are just primitive proposals (especially JPNIC's)
which may need refinement, but it is still a good start for
the fundamental discussion.
Thank you for reading this long. :-p
Regards,
Akinori