| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Randy, 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? Akinori In message <17207.49360.66829.531011@roam.psg.com> "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>" wrote: | > The situation of IP address usage has been and will be | > changing and some day we will need fix. NIRs community | > thinks PAF scheme no longer fits to adjust the contribution | > from NIRs. I admit that such topics are not of policy but | > of business operations of APNIC, but SIGs are working for | > having open discussions. | | if it is such a small amount today, as you say, then why is it | needed to deal with it today? certainly a scaled charge with | a minimum is not so complex that it places an employee cost | burden on the nirs to calculate it! | | randy | | * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * | _______________________________________________ | sig-policy mailing list | sig-policy@lists.apnic.net | http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy |
