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

Hi,

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Bastien Schils wrote:

>>  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".

Isn't maintaining a DB part of "related services"?



> 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.

"Kill off IPv4" doesn't sound like a useful motto...



>> >  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.

For me, the thin line (that needs to be crossed) is going from a situation 
where IPv4 is dominant (and IPv6-only devices need translation services), 
to a (global) scenario where IPv6 is dominant (and IPv4-only devices need 
translation services).

Translation is kind of costly, afaik, also performance-wise...


>> >  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.

I'm not sure about that..... newcomers (which by the current policy only 
get a /22) are probably where the NCC is spending the largest part of 
their effort. Is there any measurement already? Maybe a topic for RIPE 
Labs? :-)


>>  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.

Yes, transparency to the "end users" is key in this process.
I'm also not sure how IPv6 resources could get any cheaper.


Cheers,
Carlos
(pt.rccn)