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

I'm not saying that a discussion is bad, but I'm simply saying that most 
of the discussions are being had are not based on fact.

To my knowledge RIPE doesn't have a list of members categorized by 
assignment size, so this is something that someone would need to parse 
the RIPE db for, it's all public record so it can be done.

Would be curious to see, but even @ the estimated 15,000 LIR's this 
year, I would assume only 3,000~ or less have just a single /22 
associated to their account. Just as a rough number I came up with about 
879,126,218 IP's within the RIPE NCC that aren't tied to Legacy status. 
It's a VERY rough number, but as far as the average LIR size and how 
many one has I stopped short on that as that's more work than I care to 
put into pulling from the database and making associations.

Let me ask you, Arash, what is your goal. Is it to simply pay less? If 
so, perhaps that is 'somewhat' feasible, assuming an agreement can be 
reached with all parties.

If your goal is to try and redistribute IP's then most will agree, this 
is not possible, both in a legal sense (because of Legacy) and it would 
be a self harming policy for most people to vote for.

Daniel~



On 09/22/2016 06:44 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> Well, Those so called small minority have the same right as the others 
> thinking they are majority, thats why every organization has a right 
> to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a level of 
> fairness, while you can spend more time on those real issues :)
>
> Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something 
> important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, 
> to just receive an small block of /22. And the number of those new 
> members are more than the old ones which are making a fortune by 
> selling their unused IPv4 to them.
>
> Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Arash
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Pearson 
> <daniel at privatesystems.net <mailto:daniel at privatesystems.net>> wrote:
>
>     I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly
>     spouting off about things.
>
>     I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result
>     in a substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid
>     points as far as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a
>     market monopoly etc, yet the vast majority of the people crying
>     for change have produced nothing substantial.
>
>     As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on
>     reality, then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is,
>     let's move on to something more realistic, such as the folks
>     getting /29 legacy assignments just to snag a LIR account as well
>     as folks opening multiple LIR accounts with the hopes of
>     transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those are real
>     issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small
>     minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's
>     not fair lets make it fair.
>
>     Daniel~
>
>
>     On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
>
>             I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders
>             that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and
>             refuse to return their surplus for the good of the
>             internet have objections.
>             I feel this is because their bosses would then start
>             asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured
>             financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to
>             selfishness and not working towards the common good of the
>             internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as
>             an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now.
>             We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then
>             pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance
>             fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited
>             resources who are truly optimising their resources so they
>             can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they
>             could do the decent thing and rationalise their
>             requirements and return unused space.
>             What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for?
>             What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited
>             some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP.
>             That's unacceptable in the current situation.
>             I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over
>             a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said
>             they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If
>             it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23
>             and returned the rest.
>             Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return
>             50% of their space or more they can stay on the current
>             charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are
>             penalised?
>
>         Wow. Just wow.
>
>         Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and
>         reclaim.
>
>         All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may
>         not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them
>         selfish.
>         (This applies to PA space too)
>
>         None of this would make any substantial difference to the
>         exhaustion situation anyway.
>
>         It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in
>         some of the items in this thread.
>
>         BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your
>         deckchair rearrangement project?
>
>         Ian
>
>         Information in this email including any attachments may be
>         privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the
>         addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but
>         the personal views of the originator. If you have received it
>         in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete
>         it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute,
>         store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone.
>         Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail
>         communication through our internal and external networks. SKY
>         and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky
>         International AG and are used under licence.
>
>         Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service
>         Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers
>         Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or
>         indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735).
>         All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are
>         incorporated in England and Wales and share the same
>         registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
>         ----
>         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/
>         <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
>
>         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/
>     <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
>
>     Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists".
>     From here, you can add or remove addresses.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160922/4c719411/attachment.html>