Re: Meeting, Charging & Documents
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:58:27 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Alex.Bligh wrote:
> > > > But can someone teel me what is the difference between Small, Medium and
> > > > Large Registary? If there isnt apart for the amount of money we give RIPE
> > > > then what is the point?
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Perhaps these times have passed and we need to investigate more stringent
> > > mechanisms to determine registry size?
> > The strange thing is that it would seem that the larger registries
> > would be much less of a burden than the smaller ones. For example, if
> > one has a couple of /16s, then the only interaction with RIPE would
> > be to send in database updates. While running a complex database
> > like RIPE's is not trivial, it must require much less resource than
> > answering a lot of startup registry questions.
> Then the solution is to raise the joining cost.
> Many older registries have (for instance) /16s which they can assign
> out of that seem to have more sparse usage than would be allowable
> under current rules. By penalising those who have to use a small
> assignment window one might argue that one would encourage hoarding
> of such sparesly used address space, and encourage larger applications
> ("well if I get 4 class C's for this customer now I won't have to
> make another expensive application in 4 months time"). Presumably
> with usage based charging the size of the assignment window
> would become more contentious?
> Alex Bligh
> Xara Networks
The registary size should be dependant on how much address space it uses
Small upto 2x /19
Medium 3x /19 to /16
Large Above /16
This would stop people hording up ip address.
This would also seem fair to paying for a Medium or Large registary then!