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

Hi,

No, not really.
The legal/financial perspective has been that RIPE is a non-for-profit
organisation.
This proposal doesn't imply that the aggregated membership fees should
exceed the running costs for the oranisation. Only how they are
distributed among the members.

Much of the discussion has been that it's unfair that new LIRs with
only a /22 ipv4 have to pay as much as all others. 
A new LIR is in a good position to dualstack every single device from
the start, meaning that if they can end up with a lower fee than the
older LIRs, who have millions of devices to dualstack before they
qualify for the lower fee.

The real difficulty would be how to measure the actual distribution.

It likely that this model doesn't cause a much larger cost for the
large players than today, but it also means that a new provider that
choose to offer ipv6-only or dualstacked services get away at a much
lower cost.

It makes more sense to promote the adoption of todays technology,
rather than clinging on to things of the past (IPv4) that can't be
changed enough to make a difference anyhow.

Example of weights
singelstacked ipv6, factor 1
dualstacked, factor 10
singlestacked ipv4, factor 1000

Over time the amount of singlestacked ipv4 LIRs will go away, which
means that we slowly move back towards the same equal fee structure we
have today.

/Robin

On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 07:27 -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote:
> 
>     Robin,
> 
>       
> 
>       Not to be rude, but we've already explained why this is not
> >       possible for RIPE to do several times in this thread both from
a
>       financial and legal perspective. 
> 
>       
> 
>       Daniel~
> 
>       
> 
>       On 09/23/2016 05:30 AM, Robin Johansson wrote:
> 
>     
> 
> >       
> >         Hi,
> > 
> >         
> > 
> >         
> > 
> >         If we
> > > >           are to base membership fees on resources then the only
way
> >           that makes sense today is to make it really expensive if
> >           you're not giving your subscribers ipv6 addresses.
> > 
> >         
> > 
> >         
> > 
> >         Could
> >           even have it with multiple tiers
> > 
> >         majority
> >           of subs singlestacked ipv4: really expensive
> > 
> >         majority
> >           dualstacked: fairly cheap
> > 
> >         majority
> >           of subs singlestacked ipv6: really cheap
> > 
> >         
> > 
> >         
> > 
> >         This
> > > >           makes it very easy for all the new "small" LIRs to reach
the
> > > >           fairly cheap fee, as they don't have a lot of subscribers
to
> > > >           dualstack. And it gives incentive for every LIR to at
least
> > > >           dualstack, maybe move away from ipv4 all together. Also
to
> >           ensure that their subscriber base have modern equipment
> >           capable of handling ipv6.
> > 
> >         
> > 
> >         
> > 
> >         The
> >           final /22 ipv4 is enough to serve huge numbers of eyeball
> > > >           subscribers, if used wisely for supporting services and
nat64
> >           pools (or similar technology).
> > 
> >         And as
> >           more and more services get ipv6 the number of subscribers
> >           served through those pools can be increased even further.
> > 
> >       
> > 
> >       
> > 
> >       
> > 
> >       /Robin
> > 
> >       
> > 
> >       
> > 
> >       On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:51 +0200, Tim Armstrong wrote:
> > 
> > >         Rather than bickering over the last scraps of IPv4,
> > > > > >           saving smaller LIRs a few hundred euros, attempting to
somehow
> > > > > >           screw the older LIRs, or three at the same time.
Wouldn't our
> > > > > >           time be better spent working out ways to improve end
user
> > >           adoption of IPv6? 
> > >         I'd like to propose RIPE set up a fund (summer of
> > > > > >           code style) for the implementation of native IPv6
support in
> > > > > >           open-source software (such as cloudsta k, etc) and
simplifying
> > > > > >           end-user adoption. Perhaps we should even offer a free
public
> > > > > >           IPv6 tunnel service for natural persons similar to the
service
> > >           currently offered by hurricane electric.
> > >         -Tim
> > >         
> > > 
> > >           On 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris
> > > > > >             Bos" <bos at je-eigen-domein.nl>
> > >             wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 09/22/2016 01:57 PM, Daniel
> > > >               Pearson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >                 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > >                 
> > > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > > > > > >               Counting all allocated IPv4 each LIR has, and
converting
> > > >               it back to CIDR:
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               CIDR    Number of LIRs
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /24       1
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /23       4
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /22    6051
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /21    1582
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /20    1638
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /19    1547
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /18    1040
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /17     709
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /16     386
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /15     293
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /14     134
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /13     110
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /12      80
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /11      64
> > > > 
> > > >               <= /10      25
> > > > 
> > > >               <=  /9      14
> > > > 
> > > >               <=  /8       6
> > > > 
> > > >               <=  /7       2
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               IPv6 only  241
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > > > > > >               If we were to take ARIN's fees as example where
up to and
> > > > > > > >               including /20 is less expensive than RIPE's
current fees,
> > > > > > > >               9276 out of the 13686 LIRs with IPv4 would pay
less.
> > > > 
> > > >               Not just new ones...
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               Total income would be similar.
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               Yours sincerely,
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               Floris Bos
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > > >               ----
> > > > 
> > > > > > > >               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.
> > > > 
> > > >               
> > > > 
> > >           
> > > 
> > >         
> > > 
> > >         ----
> > > > > > 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.
> >       
> > 
> >       
> >       
> > 
> >       ----
> > > > 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.
>     
> 
>     
>   
> 
> ----
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160923/7e7154bd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160923/7e7154bd/attachment.sig>