[members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees

On 14/02/2012, at 15.05, Lu Heng wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Thanks for everybody's reply, I didn't expect so many replies:)
It is always interesting to hear from people with different perspectives

I don't respond much, and please don't flame me - even though I try to cut down on discussions, that IMHO are futile.

Getting "great ideas" on a whim is often not what happens, getting ideas that might seem great on a whim happens more often ;-) No offense intended


> 
> I think the best solution to solve the problem that large amount of companies holding huge amount of address--is not making Ripe a police force to check everybody's usage, Ripe NCC shouldn't be doing that as well as don't have the autherlization to do so.

A huge waste of time, lets rather consume the rest - <bold> the available space in IPv4 with all addresses would not allow for future growth! </bold>

Burn, burn, burn! Move to IPv6, relax, drink beer, tea, coffee, what you prefer.

> 
> A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high property taxes are the same reason.

I am not even going to join these discussions anymore, I think it is a waste of time to think about new ways to slice the cake, when it is gone already!

People still talking about price per IP for ANYTHING (even security testing which we do!) are nuts, sorry - please don't be offended, but you are
waisting precious time and resources discussing this.

and worse having bean-counters designing a "fair proposal" certainly will end up dividing address space in sub-optimal chunks, and I would predict this could endanger the internet even more than PIPA/SOPA/ACTA etc.

> 
> If people have to pay to hold, they normally will be more open to discussion the transfer.
> 
> Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs.

What we need is incentive, and the best incentive is connectivity, make IPv6 the default, make it simple, make it fast, ...

it already makes doing addressing plans much easier - "how big a subnet do we allocate"-questions are gone.

and to stuff like "our software/hardware/people don't understand IPv6", sorry - if people are not staying informed about important "news" discussed since the middle of the 1990s - whose fault is that? People that have dug themselves into a hole, can keep the hole ...

Hey, in the best case we will have some stagnant ISP die, great :-)


Best regards

Henrik




> With regards.
> 
> Lu
> 
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, William Weber <ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com> wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit companys (if they really make one is not the point).
> Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for mandate reasons but also because this would not be neutral.
> 
> --
> William
> EDIS GmbH
> 
> 
> Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot:
> 
>> I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys” or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate.
>>  
>> Simon
>>  
>> Simon Talbot 
>> Chief Engineer
>> Net Solutions Europe
>> T: 020 3161 6001
>> F: 020 3161 6011
>> www.nse.co.uk
>>  
>>  
>> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd.
>> Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM
>> To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor
>> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan
>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees
>>  
>> >IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to
>> > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways
>> > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6  to access the whole
>> > Internet. 
>> 
>> More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever".
>> 
>> --
>> Alexey Ivanov
>> General Director 
>> LeaderTelecom Ltd
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма.
>> 
>> -- 
>> С уважением,
>> Алексей Иванов  
>> Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком"
>>  
>> Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51
>>  
>> URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo
>> URL:  http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign
>> URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS
>> 
>> 
>> 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а):
>> Hi All,
>>  
>> IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6  to access the whole Internet. 
>>  
>> In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once  moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is.
>>  
>> New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. 
>>  
>> IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. 
>>  
>> Regards
>> Ben
>>  
>> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan
>> Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57
>> To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
>>  
>> Hi Ulf,
>>  
>> As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership  is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand.
>>  
>> Have a nice day,
>>  
>> Cenk Keylan
>>  
>> <image001.jpg>
>> 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri
>> Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266
>> 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye
>> Tel
>> : +90-312-988-0000
>> Direkt
>> : +90-312-988-1015
>> Faks
>> : +90-312-241-2888
>> http://www.3c1b.com
>> info at 3c1b.com
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM
>> To: members-discuss at ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
>>  
>> Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources
>>                 “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.”
>>  
>> The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC.
>>  
>> Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees).
>>  
>> Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>> Ulf Kieber
>> Head of NOC
>> green.ch AG
>>  
>> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info
>> Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26
>> To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
>>  
>> Hi Lu,
>>  
>> I was thinking the same.  Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used?
>> I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters.
>>  
>> Kind regards,
>>  
>> Filip Herman
>> filip at kosmozz.be  
>>  
>> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be 
>> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be)
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng
>> Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44
>> Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net
>> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
>>  
>> Hi Colleagues:
>>  
>> Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4)
>>  
>> The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well.
>>  
>> So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C)
>>  
>> So make the format simple:
>>  
>> C=(L/R*100%)*TN
>>  
>> Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions.
>>  
>> How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought.
>>  
>> --
>> --
>> Kind regards.
>> Lu
>> 
>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
>> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
>> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
>> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
>> message and including the text of the transmission received.
>> ----
>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
> ----
> 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.

--
Henrik Lund Kramshøj, Follower of the Great Way of Unix
hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com 
+45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH
http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler