[members-discuss] Response to queries on Charging Scheme Models

Dear Frank and Sascha,

Thank you for your comments. Below my response.

> The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change?

* Yes this will change with the final /8 policy . As soon as RIPE NCC reaches the final /8, the (minimum and maximum) allocation size will be a /22.
New LIRs can only get a /22.

> With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect?

* It is a side effect and not a purpose. The XXS category is created for several reasons:
- to facilitate existing Direct Assignment Users, with small assignments that currently have a direct contract with the RIPE NCC, to become members
- to provide the option for small End Users that do not have a sponsoring LIR or do not want a sponsoring LIR, to become members for a reasonable fee
- towards the future for Legacy Resource holders with small allocations/assignments i.e. /24 (class C) to become members for a reasonable fee 

> Do sponsored ASN count into the category? (eg, does a LIR with 1x /22 PA allocation but sponsoring 5 ASN now fall into 'Large'?

* Yes sponsored ASNs count into the category. For an LIR to be in the Large category they should at least have 17 or more ASNs registered with their account (own infrastructure and sponsored ASNs)

Regards,


Jochem

On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Frank Louwers wrote:

> Jochem,
> 
> Thank you for your added comments. Can you comment on two items:
> 
> - The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change?
> 
> - With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> On 02 Aug 2011, at 16:37, Jochem de Ruig wrote:
> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented.
>> 
>> In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs.
>> 
>> It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs.
>> 
>> Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve.
>> 
>> The service fees mentioned are based on:
>> - The current expense forecast for 2012
>> - The current membership growth forecast
>> - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve)
>> 
>> Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow.
>> 
>> Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1.
>> 
>> We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> 
>> Jochem de Ruig
>> Chief Financial Officer
>> RIPE NCC
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1735 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20110803/153942e8/attachment.p7s>