Hi Daniel, >you still pay only *membership* fee. It's not a per-IP cost, even if it can >look like that. Old resource holders pays similar fee independently from >number of IP addresses they hold.
RIPE NCC members can change this charging scheme, right? It was not like this always... > One of goals is *conservation*, and initial assignment of /24 helps with that > - and not each new LIR really needs /22. There're lot of organisationss > having single /24 (old PI allocations) from the past and they're still happy > with that. These were allocated to end users, are routed and also nobody > concerned about routing table size. Since posibility of PI alocations was > ceased, new organisations have to become "full LIR" - and then you receive > /22, automatically - even you don't need it. We're simply wasting limited > addres space here - just because something "simplified" and "automated". An org will not be limited to /24 even with this proposal; they can open additional LIRs to get more. Or register a new business if RIPE NCC bans multi LIR again. It is not easy to say that we are wasting limited address space by allocating /22, the ones need less than an /22 can transfer their free blocks to others who are in need (even new entrants) after two years or lease them immediately. Maybe there are some LIRs don’t fully utilize their /22 as soon as they receive the allocation, but what about the ones got their allocations before last /8 policy, are they all fully used? The actual wasting was done somewhere else years ago, and nobody cares about that now. Regards, Arash
