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

Hi,
(please see inline)


On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Academia NOC 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.

"for the good of the internet"?
That line was crossed when markets were enabled......


> 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'.

Do you mean "sell" or "lease"?


> 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.

You might want to look again what "Legacy" means.
RIPE (through the RIPE/NCC) might reach a point where it can stop 
providing services to "legacy space". If that happens, the next question 
is where will "legacy space holders" get service from...



> We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the 
> unused space or return it.

"We" can't really decide on how legacy resource holders use their address 
space. "We" can only decide how services are available (or not)...


> 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.

"Legacy resource holders" manage their businesses, "LIRs with limited 
resources" also manage their businesses. Neither of these categories seems 
to be a charity... :-)


> Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements 
> and return unused space.

You might want to check the "legacy" definition again. :-))


> What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni 
> need a /16 for?

No idea. Would expect who is managing them to know :-)


> 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.

Different people have different views about NAT! :-)
Go ask LEAs if they prefer 1 IP per device or NATs...? ;-)


> 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.

And they can grow their current operational model if they wish, because 
they have the addresses to do it.


> If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and 
> returned the rest.

It's a risk management issue. What if in 2 years time they would need 
another /23? How much would they pay for it?


> Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders

"Amnesty", as in a pardon for having requested and received IPv4 address 
space before even the RIPE/NCC (and other RIRs) were created?
Sounds really weird to me...


> where if they return 50% of their  space

People are getting money for their IPv4 assets (or usage rights, or 
something...), so the concept of "returning" sounds a bit like a romantic 
idea :-)


> or more they can stay on the current charging scheme

Please keep in mind legacy resource holders are getting services from the 
RIPE/NCC. If they stop receiving those services, they won't stop being 
holders/owners of their space......


> but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?

How do you "hoard" something which is your property? :-)


Regards,
Carlos


> G
> -- Regards,
> 
> Graham Stewart
> Senior Solutions Architect
> Network Operation Centre
> Academia Ltd. (AS47704)
> 
> P. +44 (0)1992 703 900
> 
> E&OE
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016, at 19:21, Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
>
>       On 21/09/2016 15:46, Muntasir.Ali at newham.gov.uk wrote:
>             Hi,
> 
> 
>
>             As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models
>             based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged.  This is
>             considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they
>             implemented as described.  Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6
>             services on our networks.  If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to
>             adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand
>             new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation.  If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if
>             we have no IPv4 registered, we don't get charged anything?  We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members.  Even though we
>             are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be
>             better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community.
> 
> 
>
>       Speaking also as a non-profit, academic LIR with legacy IPv4 address
>       space, I too would be opposed to any charging model whereby the legacy
>       address space was billed based on size.  I moved all our address space
>       to within RIPE and thereby pay an additional 450 Euro on top of the 1400
>       Euro membership fee (50 Euro x 9).  I consider that fair.
>
>       One has to understand that legacy holders are a minority.  The vast
>       majority of LIRs are newcomers.  This vast majority can one day wake up
>       and vote to charge all legacy holders a 10,000Euro fee per object -
>       simply because they can.  Their fee would go down a bit and legacy
>       holders would either have to leave with their objects or pay through the
>       nose.  As in any democracy,  there are checks and balances such that the
>       executive branch would have to veto any such proposal.  Hopefully.
>
>       -Hank
> 
> 
>
>       ----
>       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.
> 
> 
>