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

On 14/09/2016 16:24, Rob Golding wrote:
> On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Whilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is
> using your model for their organisation
Can we keep it a clean conversation without "ad hominem" attacks?

That remark was quite useless at best, disrespectful at worst.
>
>> The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in
>> mind.
>
> Ultimately RIPEs "job" is to maintain a list (DB) and as a community,
> set policy for getting things onto that list.
>
> Each LIRs "cost" to RIPE is administrative (membership management,
> sending letters etc) and _somewhat_ proportionate to how much data
> they have in that database (and how much support/manual-work they need)
>
> The numbers in the "starting ip" and "ending ip" fields don't change
> that cost, effectively a /32 "costs" no more or less than a /8 - 1
> record in a db is 1 record in a db
>
"We're an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that 
supports the infrastructure of the Internet through technical 
coordination in our service region. Our most prominent activity is to 
act as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet 
resources and related services (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Number resources) to 
members in our service region."

It clearly states "providing global Internet resources and related 
services"  and not "maintaining a DB".

The more you use resources, the more you cost to maintain. That seems fair.

>
>> Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?
>
> A goal to have all "publicly accessible internet devices accessible
> over ipv6" makes sense, but there is (and never will be) a "need" to
> kill off ipv4.
We are drifting off topic here. But I suggest that you reconsider your 
position.
>
>> I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest.
>
> It's certainly not in "everyones" interest - there are millions of
> IPv4-only devices out there, it's not in the owners interest to have
> to buy (even if it was possible to replace) new ones.
It is in the greater-good's interest.
>
>> 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.
>
> And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100
> times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be
> appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it
> doesn't matter about the size of that range.
Let's take it from another perspective:
If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think 
that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE?

Well, in my opinion: Yes.
>
> Making IPv6 resources "cheaper" might be an incentive to adoption, but
> I doubt it.
>
> Getting the bulk of "end users" on IPv6 is (and always has been) the
> only real way to drive usage up, and in general end-users neither know
> nor care, IP is IP is IP at the end of the day
>
Agree.
>
> Rob
>
> ---

B.