[members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments

Dear all,

this reaction has in basic little to do with charging scheme, but is significant to the whole operation and the charging schemes now discussed.

A little history: I'm professionally behind computers/desk calculators since 1974, so I have seen some things in the past 35+ years...

The whole issue of LIR's staring up is the fact that those out there in the field (hosters), come with servers which require IPv4. Start with checking shells like Direct Admin. IP NAT translation is already putting a problem on the licensing of that application. Now try to register a native IPv6 server...

I also have been behind Cisco for the last 17 years, so I have made some tests... NAT-PT for IPv4 in IPv6 addressing will not solve the problem for those hosters. NAT remains NAT. So, their door will be passed to someone who has ample IPv4 address space... Here we have an unequal battle on our hands.

Moreover, what about customers which want to switch hoster? Will they stop with their server in their hands at a new hoster with little IPv4 space to devide?

I have checked many applications and there are lots around which pose the same problem... Is it not the software which puts limits, then the registration processes at the developer side is not ready for an IPv6 address... 

What does this mean for the remaining IPv4 space? Who do we give it?

Now start looking at current situation with much legacy IPv4 in hands of just a handfull companies/institutions. Wether someone tells me that this has been given out before RIPE or ARIN even existed, those ranges still eat up my memory in my BGP router... 

If they want to keep it, guys, put it behind your MPLS network and let the 5 RIR's handle the needed IPv4 space...

Lots of software still out there is not ready for switching to IPv6 given the example of Direct Admin.

Have a look at large operating systems like TPF (airlines/IBM) for instance. If there was a reason some parts would not be ready to run IPv6 now, do you think it will be tomorrow? How many workstations are connected to those reservation systems from United Airlines, Galileo, Amadeus, etc, etc worldwide?

Now analize networks. Most of them are already able to work with IPv6. We have mechanisms like MPLS whch enables us to even use fictitious protocols like smoke signals or tam-tam protocol. We can run all if we want anywhere. Are we limited by any reasons not to roll out IPv6? No, we can do it.

Servers and developed applications cannot. Simply we could have a customer who spend a lot of money in developing an application which runs on an operating system just not quite ready for IPv6. Upgrading the OS to be able to do it, would cost him a tremendous amount of money because it means work on his application.

In basic such a customer will use a LIR/hoster which has enough IPv4 and not the newer kids on the block which are kept happy with a bar of chocolate...

Now back to the charging scheme; how does it look effectively? No gain in new LIR's since they can offer a small amount of IPv4 resources, putting them behind the net...

I feel that RIPE (and other RIR's) should be able to increase the number of LIR's, not to keep the same numbers and simply devide the rising costs between the existing LIR's.

My recommendations are: 

- Stop giving away IP (PI) space to non-LIR members for a little fee; let LIR's handle the customers. Compare this with ccTLD SIDN. Works with members only;
- claim back /8 networks. We are bothered by them, so they should obey the rules of IPv4 instead of sitting on huge piles of addresses without being used at all;
- focus on the large LIR's first. They have means to increase IPv6 (core) and thus would be able to donate back IPv4.

Remember, I am from a time when a computer was more like a calculator and brand names were HP model 9825 and 9830. My mouse that time used to be a soldering iron fixing problems in external I/O interfaces...

The enormous growth we have now, also due to Virtualization will require IPv6 implementation FAST, but not without having new LIR's be able to compete with the existing ones.

Any discussion on pricing model is senseless if you don't solve that issue FIRST!

Regards,

Fred
________________________________________
From: Paolo Di Francesco [paolo.difrancesco at level7.it]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 23:34
To: Fred Arendse
Cc: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments

Dear All,

I agree with what Fred wrote. As a small ISP (and also startup) I
forecast troubles in the future for who wants to get into the business
next year.

Indeed I do not think that a "pure IPv6" operator-network is feasable
for an Italian ISP, most of the content is still (and it will be) on
IPv6 for a long time.

Considering that in Italy we cannot (for legal reasons) to do nat or yes
we can do but only a 1-to-1 nat, this means that a small ISP that starts
the business when the IPv4 address space is gone would have huge
difficulties in making that content reachable for its customers.

In few words most of the techincal difficulties and issues would go to
the small ISP while big and huge systems would still use their "IPv4
reserves" which not so many issues.

My personal opinion is that, being IPv4 a scarse resource, the big
systems/telco (who holds most of the content in most cases) should be
pushed to implement IPv6 asap. And that would happen only with an
aggressive (exponential) IPv4 fee plan that discourage the use of IPv4
address space.
I find immoral and techincally

> Dear Nigel,
>
> Implementing IPv6 only works if we use a "big bang policy" like the millennium problem or the Euro. That is not going to happen, because we cannot force members or their customers to go along at the same time. For that reason I believe the following situation is true:
>
> 1. IPv4 billing remains and IPv6 billing with much more address space opens the door for more members.
>
> For a non-profit organization that would mean lowering the membership fees and lowering the allocation fees... Did anyone made a calculation on how RIPE would benefit from a significant increase in members during 2012?
>
> 2. New members should have equal rights compared to current members to implement IPv4 and IPv6.
>
> Since last February the last /8's have been given to the RIR's. They are now almost depleted. This means new members can't have new IPv4 addresses and should right away start with implementing IPv6. The effects of that depletion is that among current members IPv4 address space is being sold/transferred. This works in hand a rise in cost for new members who need IPv4 and it starts looking like a trade floor which totally opposes the RIPE allocation policies.
>
> 3. The strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest load.
>
> I would like to suggest claiming back some old allocations, starting with the /8's which are also not used for more than 15 per cent at the most. Those companies/institutions have much more resources to implement IPv6 faster than most of us.
>
> More members would avoid increase in membership fees, but this is actually hold back due to lack of IPv4 and the backdoor trade which start to flourish wildly ...
>
> Regards,
>
> Fred Arendse
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley
> Sent: vrijdag 30 september 2011 9:53
> To: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Subject: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012.
>
> We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should.
>
> You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use.
>
> During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members.
>
> However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories  of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages.
>
> As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees.
>
> In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number.
> Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held.
>
> This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings.
>
> At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nigel Titley
> Chairman
> RIPE NCC Executive Board
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> 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.
>


--


Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale

Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo

C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
Fax : +39-091-8772072
assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
web: http://www.level7.it