[members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst

Hi Christian & Marcel,

Upfront, sorry for the rather lengthy reply.

In regards of the 'wiwi' model, it does looks like a nice start for the payment, when looking at just IPv4 PA. But what about the other objects ?

How would one look at current legacy holders ? Are those excluded or would they fall within the model for the number of resources they would actually have obtained through RIPE ? (at minimum a /22 read Euro 502 ).

On the part of PI space, would you say, let's include that in the current list.

In our particular case, we have a /21 and a /17 in PA.

We have 10 PI objects requested for customers, for which we almost use a /19 in total.
Currently that would cost us 500 euro (roughly as some of the assignments on PI are /23's with a /24.. but still let's keep it easy).
We also have 8 AS's currently listed in the LIR portal, of which we actually use 1 for ourselves and the others are in use by customers.

In the 'wiwi' table, we would fall with the /17 and the /21 in the /16 category.

Including the PI space in the same table, we would still be below the /16 and we wouldn't have any additional cost.

However I'm pretty sure that RIPE would much rather hand us PA instead of PI as each PI request need to be carefully documented / administrated, put to a name / company / address / requirement. And there is no additional income to off-set that labor.

As a LIR we charge for requesting (handling) of PI space, regardless if it is approved by RIPE or not. ( We don't do charity in that respect.)
If approved, the customer gets an invoice for the handling of the request to RIPE (600 euro one time) and a yearly maintenance fee of 200 euro for the initial /24. Each additional /24 cost 20 euro. So a customer with a /21 would get an initial invoice of 600 euro plus 340 euro for the maintenance.

Still cheaper for that customer to deal with us and let us deal with RIPE than to sign-up with RIPE as a LIR and have to learn the lingo. ( mind you in the current situation, which breaks when the pool is going into the last /8.)

On the part for handling of the resources on the side of RIPE, there is a cost per object and personally I think it should stay.
Personally I would even advocate that both PI IPv4 and PI IPv6 should have a price tag around 200 Euro per object. That is purely because of the amount of time that is required to administrate the object and to make it clear to customers that this is not something one could just request for fun.
Also, if someone could not cough up the cost for the PI, there is also no business case why they would need it in the first place. This also goes imho for starting to become a LIR.

Now we will likely see an increase in the request of PI space in the last part of 2011. We already have more request for PI per month than let's say a year ago. And that will be the case is my estimation until RIPE is sold - out.

That will likely be the moment where RIPE will see an increase in the number of LIR's, basically with the a similar profile that before would go for PI space. They would sign-up for a membership, get a /22 with close to no limitations on how to use it or qualifications, they buy their way into the LIR community and get served.

Now on the part of the 2 smallest LIR memberships.. the baby sized LIRs, it would be my recommendation to skip the initial 2 steps in the 'wiwi table' and/or the 2 smallest LIR membership in the original Charging scheme 2012.

Especially because the once the resource pool is empty and there will only be the last /8 to be divided, one should have a damn good reason imho to be able to tap into that. At least 1300 euro's worth of a yearly upkeep. Especially the initial year is taking more time and effort (by RIPE) from a LIR, so why lower the cost for more smaller entries and increase the workload ? In my view that doesn't scale from an economic point of view.

Seeing that the XXS LIR membership would have IPv6 smaller than a /32 .. IPv4 < /22 and only a 250 euro setup fee.. Come on.  Are there any kind of limitations that the board is planning in that model ? Like if you request more that you would need to pay the difference of the setup fee to become a full-member ? Could one actually request beyond the initial request IPv6 if they have < /32 or more AS's ? It is only allowed ( by 2010-02 as I recall ) that a LIR can only have 1 allocation from the final /8 on IPv4.

<begin Quote 2010-02>

1.Allocations for LIRs from the last /8
On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following:

1.LIRs may only receive one allocation from this /8. The size of the allocation made under this policy will be exactly one /22.

</end Quote 2010-02>

Anyway .. still lots of questions.

Erik Bais