[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

Hi, 

"How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”."

It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources.
The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in mind.
When it comes to IPv6 it's irrelevant, and perhaps a single pricing model would be more appropriate in this case.

Trying to stay impartial (impossible but...), how about:

Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?

I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest.
I'd like to see some form of IPv4 switch off target date set and a financial incentive model to encourage full deployment.
Increasing costs for IPv4's in a disproportionate way, and artificially making IPv6 ready networks lower cost should do it?

My take on this would therefore be to have a notional membership cost say 1 euro, and for the time being move to charging primarily based upon IPv4 resources and give discounts to each LIR that declares they're ready for an IPv4 switch off.
To compensate for the economic advantage LIR's with large amounts of IPv4's have, a weighting could be applied to make each IPv4 address proportionally more expensive as well.

If you think about it I don't think it's that far off from the thinking behind the current charging model.

Speaking as a small LIR/ISP the current charging model appears to favour uptake of IPv6 by smaller LIR/ISP's, not the larger ones, where in my opinion it really matters.
If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time.
I think once all the large networks are IPv6 ready, everyone else will follow suit very quickly, and all LIR's should be much happier once "IPv4 scarce resources" are no longer required.
I understand that large networks are inherently more complex, however, they are usually much better funded as well, and imho should contribute proportionally more to the RIPE coffers.

If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.

Regards

Chris Smith
Subtopia Ltd
t.+44 (0)121 638 0888

-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of James Blessing
Sent: 13 September 2016 12:59 PM
To: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model





On 13/09/2016, 12:15, "members-discuss on behalf of Nigel Titley" <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of nigel at titley.com> wrote:

>    The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the
>    upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this
>    issue on <members-discuss at ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on
>    whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE
>    NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be.

Hi,

The idea of a per LIR fee only seems to be (in principle) a good idea and one that I believe that should be retained by RIPE.

However, there are a number of reasons to move to move to a system where 80% (a number plucked from the air) of the costs are made up from *all* members and the remainder made up based on the impact of individual members on the operational costs maintaining RIPE.

How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”.

I therefore propose that the remaining costs apportions are focused on two separate goals “accuracy of the database” and “conservation of scarce resource” if a proposal does not fit within *both* of these goals then it should be rejected as being not in the interest of the wider community.

If we, as a community, cannot achieve changes that meet both these goals then I suggest we stay with the status quo.

Thx

J
--

James Blessing
CTO

M: +44(0)7989 039 476
E:  james.blessing at keycom.co.uk





________________________________


Email Disclaimer:
This email transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only. Its contents are private and confidential and should not be read, copied or disclosed by any other person. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and any copies of it and telephone the sender or email them by return.

Although Relish Networks plc believes that this message and any attachments are free of any viruses or other defects which may affect a computer, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is free of viruses and other defects. Relish Networks plc does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use.

This email disclaimer is for all Relish Networks plc companies (Company registration number 03921568) whose registered office is at 20-22 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JS.

Please consider the Environment before printing this email.
----
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/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.