[ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

there is a logic - larger operators will use much more IPv4 space and 
don't care IPv4 space. New LIR's will not have the chance to do that as 
each year it will be much restricted from RIPE in fact that IPv4 space 
is coming more and more rare.

A lot of "big LIR" will have a high pool of "not used" IPv4 address but 
they are not care to reduce/return that space as other can use it. So 
why a little LIR should only have the right to get a /22 (as we are 
going to got a LIR in 1997 it was a /19).

A used based charge is the only best charge even like "member points". 
As a gift to be not less supported a idea is to get them more "voices" 
an the general meeting, more courses place or anythink like this.

There is no logic that a small LIR (as they are a lot of all members) 
should pay the high percentage even the don't use the high ranges of IPv4.

Have you asked one time as a small/medium LIR to order a /16 network ?? 
If a big LIR will ask he will receive without a lot of information. For 
a small/medium LIR it was like unpossible to get a new /19 in the past 
as we know it from ourself as we only got a /20 one.

bye alex


Am 04.08.2011 14:05, schrieb Daniel Kleeman:
> I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators  less per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not support) then it should be a flat rate.
>
> Daniel Kleeman
> Bridge Partners
> GB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco
> Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44
> To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
> Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
>
> Hi all,
>
> I disagree with this approach for two reasons:
>
> 1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002
>
> 2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come.
>
> I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay less than a small operator.
>
> My concern is that:
>
> a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators.
>
> b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW
> IPv4 addresses in 2014?)
>
> Just my 2 euro cents.
>
>> On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space
>>> tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other
>>> RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation.
>> It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote
>> address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being
>> some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE
>> region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 -
>> the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to
>> the big player.
>>
>> Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal:
>>
>> /22  0.490
>> /21  0.441
>> /20  0.319
>> /19  0.210
>> /18  0.130
>> /17  0.078
>> /16  0.046
>> /15  0.027
>> /14  0.016
>> /13  0.010
>> /12  0.006
>> /11  0.004
>> /10  0.003
>> /9   0.003
>> /8   0.002
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>      wiwi
>>
>> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members
>> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at:
>> http://lirportal.ripe.net/
>> First click on General and then click on Edit.
>> At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.
>
>