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

The measurement of addresses should be purely based upon allocation blocks (of say a /24 equivalent), not whether they are in use.

It’s a relatively simple calculation to perform based upon the RIPE database. 

If a member hands back IP’s, the calculations that run in the following year would take this into account.

 

Keeping the numbers simple.

 

Say total running costs for RIPE are $100

10% of IP total RIPE space is unallocated

 

90% of IP total RIPE space is allocated

 

LIR1: 30% : 100/90 * 30 :- $33.33

LIR2: 20% : 100/90 * 20 :- $22.22

LIR3: 40% : 100/90 * 40 :- $44.44

 

If you want to take account of new LIR setup fees, then just do

$100 – (projected new LIR member count * LIR setup fee)

And use that as the input to the initial running cost calculation.

However it would be much easier to consider any setup fees generated from new LIR’s be put into a surplus funds pot, and used in the following year to discount the fees that everyone pays for their allocations.

Also, a number of people have been making the point about RIPE making a profit if this charging model was adopted.

Yes, there’s a risk of RIPE ending up in surplus, they’ve previously run a surplus in prior years, I would actually say this a wise thing to so long as it’s a reasonable figure – say 5%-10%?

 

I’d agree with other comments about increasing costs to new LIR’s, it’s a sensible argument to reduce the potential risk of LIR’s registering to gain additional /22’s.

 

Chris

 

From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jetten Raymond
Sent: 16 September 2016 1:24 PM
To: Prager-IT e.U.; members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

 

Hi Stefan and All,

 

How on earth are You, or who has resources to, do the measurement of addresses “in use”?

Let me explain:

 

Please explain “in use” means what?

a / 30 v4 assigned has 1 address in use for a host, one gateway and technical addresses so it would be 25 % right?

a /24 v4 assigned has maximum 253 addresses in use for hosts, one gateway, or maybe 2 you never know, somewhere around 98,4 %

these assigned blocks can change many times a year, how do you take that into consideration? 

How are you going to see behind companies firewalls if the address is really in use…. or behind the border routers of large ISP:s if the space is “free”

If you mean registering it in the Database, this can be done….

 

Basically a new lir needs more help than a 20 year old dino lir, probably covered by the setup fee.

A higher setup fee will probably stop new entrepreneurs from starting businesses, and RIPE might get sewed for preventing this.

 

I agree with the flat rate, no need to change.

 

Cheers Nigel !

Rgds,

 

Ray

Elisa Corporation.

 

 

 

From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Prager-IT e.U.
Sent: 16. syyskuuta 2016 14:55
To: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

 

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel at privatesystems.net> wrote:

On 09/16/2016 05:57 AM, Prager-IT e.U. wrote:

The plan I envision is quite simple, move from the current Flatrate charging scheme to a system that charges members an amount for the resources they are using. This will ensure that each and every RIPE NCC member will pay their fair share.

 

 

1. Charge per allocated IPv4 address with a linear system.

 

price_per_ipv4 = required_budget / amount_of_addresses_in_use

your_yearly_membership_fee = amount_of_ipv4_you_use * price_per_ipv4

 


Did you happen to read my reply to the thread. This is going to equate to almost no resources left as a /22 will cost roughly 24 EUR per year. 

 

I read everything said so far, to prevent this from happening we also need to increase the setup fee as I already outlined.

 

 

 

This will also apply to Provider Independent(PI) assignemnts, anycasting assignments and Legacy Internet Resources registered via a sponsoring Local Internet Registry(LIR).


You're going to be hard pressed to charge Legacy resource holders, BUT, even if you did, my above figure of a /22 costing 24EUR would probably be cut down to 16 EUR or less

 

If the resources are sponsored via a sponsoring Local Internet Registry(LIR) I don't see why we should not be able to charge the Legacy resource holders.

 

 

 

IPv6 PI assignments and IPv6 IXP assigments will remain unchanged at 50,-- Euros per year.


Moot point here since the number of IPV6 resources avail. 

 

The goal is to provide a comprehensive plan for the membership to vote on. The way I see this needs to be in addressed as well in order for that to happen.

 

 

 

If we ever reach a point where IPv4 becomes obsolete revert back to a Flatrate System as due to the nature of IPv6 a Flatrate system is a fair choice.

 

 

2. Increase the Setup Fee to an amount that reflects the current reality of the transfer market, 6.000,-- Euros.


Read the 2015 Budget, they collected slightly over 5 Million EUR in setup fee's, which got dispersed back to its members as a credit on next years bill, increasing the setup fee will simply act to lower, even further, the yearly cost. In 2015 Each LIR would have received 'roughly' a 415 EUR credit on their bill... So we might as well just not charge for IPv4 upto a /19 , and if you're going to up the setup fee's then we might as well make that a free /18.

 

I am well aware of the numbers. Under my plan there most likely would never be any sum significant enough to disperse.

 





 

 

3. Introduce an Inter-RIR Transfer Fee for resources that leave the RIPE Region so people don't flee with their resources into a cheaper Region, 3,-- Euros per IPv4 address.


If you do this, then it's a two way street. Not to mention that in the growing global age, you can't tell me every IP being routed to the ripe region is under RIPEs control. By adding additional hurdles folks will simply ignore, and announce their space globally from the originating RIR more so than they currently do now. 

 

The goal of the change is to prevent people from fleeing with their resources allocated by the RIPE NCC from fleeing into cheaper regions after the new charging scheme has been approved.

 

I am confused as to why you are going on about where resources are being announced from.

 

 

 

 

 

4. Buy Back IPv4 resources and return them to the free pool with any excess money from members that are willing to give back resources.


With what money are these bought back and at what price? Only to re-assign at a financial loss and then have to buy it back again? Grand scheme of things, everybody here is ignoring the fact that, with basically 21,000,000 EUR budget to disperse between all LIR's in RIPE you aren't going to change the world. Aside from a lot of keyboard warriors pounding away with random ideas that have no factual backings this thread accomplishes nothing.

 

After the membership has approved the new plan via a majority vote there will be an excess in money available due to the higher setup fee. The price will be determined by availability.

 

Again, I am well aware of the numbers it just seems that you are unable to see the picture yet.

 

 

Kind Regards,
Stefan Prager

--
Prager-IT e.U.
VAT Number: ATU69773505
Austrian Company Register: 438885w

Skype: Prager-IT
contact at prager-it.com
+43 680 300 99 80 <tel:%2B43%20680%20300%2099%2080> 
+44 20 376 962 11

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160916/be1573e3/attachment.html>