[112846] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Redundant AS's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hank Nussbacher)
Sat Mar 21 13:49:00 2009
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:48:50 +0200 (IST)
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>
To: Heather Schiller <heather.schiller@verizonbusiness.com>
In-Reply-To: <49C3C952.4050808@verizonbusiness.com>
Cc: goemon@anime.net, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Heather Schiller wrote:
> I don't think old vs new really matters.. pardon me for sticking w/ ARIN in
> this example.. I can follow their fee structure easiest - and doesn't have
> the old vs new: (https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html)
>
> ARIN charges $100/yr for ASN's ... any "compensation" for returning an ASN
> should be less than the $100 they charge? Would it make any financial sense
> to compensate someone $500 for returning an ASN that only generates $100 a
> year? (Remember that the RIR's are non-profits..)
Well old vs new does have consequences. I have many ASNs issued since
1996, yet they were never charged.
See 2006: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-360.pdf
"Note: AS Numbers, PI IPv4 and IPv6 special purpose assignments issued
before 1 October 2004 will NOT count toward the 2006 billing score." As it
had been up till that point.
Yet in 2007: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-392.pdf
that rule changed and suddenly older allocations were suddenly billed.
So a LIR that issued ASNs to customers and only charged them a one-time
fee in 1996-2006 (processing and handling) is suddenly saddled with
additional costs that they can no longer pass on to the customer.
I wonder what ARIN did in that regards.
Regards,
Hank
