[members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments

those "big amounts of inetnum objects" however are usually subnets of 
/16 , /15, /14 or even /8's so that won't change -much-.

its not like they have significantly more objects, its just that they have 
larger ones.

i'd say, like erik bais, flat-fee, and forget about this overhead.

(oh and get rid of policy 2007-01 as a LIR is -supposed to be- an office 
that hands out ip space (registers pi for its customers)... policy 2007-01 
is a pain in the butt ;)

i'm more for scrapping the concept of PA space than for making it 
difficult to get PI for your customers.

and "omg ipv4 will run out".. well ipv4 runs out anyway.
lets get it over with.

-- 
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Enterprises Ltc.
=========================================================================
Address: One CyberBunker Avenue    Registration:    RCB00A3LE
          CB-10000
          CyberBunker-1             Phone:           +31/(0)87-8747479
          Republic-CyberBunker      GSM:             +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:    CBSK1-RIPE                e-Mail:          sven at cb3rob.net
=========================================================================

http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob
=========================================================================

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.


On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Michiel Klaver wrote:

> Hi Christopher,
>
> Looking at the current (and past) charging fees, only 1% of all registered
> LIRs are category extra large, and they already pay 'peanuts' compared to
> their size: 5750 euro, not even the double of a medium size category LIR
> (2750 euro). I doubt those extra large companies would pay considerably
> less with this proposed scheme, as most of them have numerous registered
> objects. Just run an inverse lookup at the RIPE database for some of
> maintainer objects of the extra large category members to see big amounts
> of inetnum objects as result.
>
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-499
>
> Some arguments in favour for this new scheme would be:
> - Ease of administration (and less costs for NCC);
> - Fair and transparent for every LIR, without complicated formula like the
> current scheme;
> - Future proof, not based on ipv4 address count;
>
>
> Please take a look at the current numbers or wait for the proper
> calculations before jumping to conclusions about this proposal.
>
>
> With kind regards,
> Michiel Klaver
>
>
>
> At  Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:28:01 +0200, "Christopher Kunz (Filoo GmbH)"
> <chris at filoo.de> wrote:
>
> Err... Great idea... or is it? Really, cui bono?
>
> This scheme has been proposed numerous times, IIRC even in this very
> discussion. In my perception, Small LIRs will not really profit from it,
> as they typically have a small network (1 or 2 allocations, 1 ASN,
> X-SMALL category). They'll pay roughly the same because the annual
> membership fee will have to be adjusted to account for the losses
> accrued by your idea.
> Medium LIRs might pay slightly less, I guess... There's probably a sweet
> spot somewhere (and I'll assume you calculated it so you're in it ;) ).
> Big LIRs however, with their multiple 12's, large AS sets and network
> allocations would probably pay drastically less than before. This would
> shift the weight off those who massively profit from the resources
> administrated by RIPE NCC onto those who take up less resources. I don't
> consider this to be very fair.
> On the contrary: Those who use up large portions of the address space
> should damn well pay large portions of the NCC's bills.
>
> In addition, charging per resource allocation, be it one address or 65K,
> looks like "per address" charging to the tax authorities. And this is
> specifically what RIPE is looking to avoid.
>
> Gruß,
>
> --ck
>
> PS: To the colleagues at Telekom and PrivateLayer: GET YOUR DAMN TICKET
> SYSTEMS OFF THIS LIST!
>
>
> ----
> 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.
>