SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Previous message (by thread): SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sven Olaf Kamphuis
sven at cyberbunker.com
Thu Aug 4 21:52:32 CEST 2011
we -don't- do that with pi. a /24 pi "resource" is 50 euros a /8 pi "resource" is still 50 euros. On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Geir Aage Amundsen wrote: > Can't we just charge IPv4 /24 50 euro as we do with PI. So a /21 8 X 50 = > 400. A /20 will be a 800. We can take a RIPE member charge 500,-. I ASN > could be 50 or 100. The price can be adjusted annually accordingly after a > index. > > This could be the pricing model for the IP 4 and ASN. The membership could > include one /24 and one ASN. > > I haven't taken the consideration of IP6 space. I /24 could potentially give > 64 connections to clients and is well worth 50 I should guess. We can get > rid of the XS and XL size system. This should cover RIPE administration > expenses. > > Regards > > Geir > Hotwire Network > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] > På vegne av SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling > Sendt: 4. august 2011 21:07 > Til: members-discuss at ripe.net > Emne: Re: [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. >> >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. >
- Previous message (by thread): SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]