Hi,
On 19/01/15 22:32, Nick Hilliard wrote:
[...]
It also creates work for the RIPE NCC and
someone needs to pay the RIPE NCC bills both to develop and to operate the
system. This cost will be borne by the LIRs and as a LIR, I'm not much
keen on funding this sort of thing.
Are you sure this battle of yours is not so that you can go on one-week
free trips to Bali paid by the LIRs? (like the IGF a couple of years ago)
I am asking this rude question because, I do not see why you come back
with the argument that LIRs should not fund the NCC for assigning free
ASNs. The members during the AGM have already decided to remove the 50E
fee for ASNs a couple of years ago and you fight with all your strength
to put it back on.
Also, since we are talking about costs per LIRs, have you not noticed
that the price an LIR has been paying has continuously decreased, almost
every year? And this has been happening while the RIPE NCC budget has
increased every year..
Also the proposal doesn't include any sort of garbage collection mechanism.
In a situation where we face short-term depletion of the resource, this is
important.
There are 32bit ASNs available with the billions.. which short-term
depletion are you referring to? The 16bit ASNs have, already, an
exception in the proposed policy text "When requesting a 16-bit AS
Number, the network must be multihomed within nine months of the
assignment. Failure to multihome within this timeframe will result in
deregistration of the assignment."
As for the garbage collection, the 50E/assignment will not fix the
problem (in most of the cases) because most of the LIRs just pay without
bothering to check whether the customer still needs the resource or may
want to return it. Maybe the RIPE NCC can actually implement a method
where it actually asks the customer or the LIR to confirm (by ticking a
box ?) the resource is still needed, on a yearly basis.
Nick
/Elvis
