[members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jac Kloots
jac.kloots at surfnet.nl
Thu Apr 18 11:43:10 CEST 2019
On 18/04/2019 10:55, Alexandru Doszlop wrote: > > > They will simply not become members and big chunks of used IPv4 will > remain legacy forever in the database. And they will never get a legitimate holder, thus no certificate, thus no ROA, thus no RPKI validation. As a holder of a lot of legacy space, that is handled in the lir-portal, and is certified and has ROAs.. Option B basically makes securing the internet a very costly exercise. Jac > > > Regards, > > Alex > > > On 18.04.2019 09:43, Hans Govenius wrote: >> Hello >> >> >> Money is one of the best consultants in the world. >> >> This is a two edged sword, the basics of community like Ripe NCC is >> not to make money nor to have "forced" members in uneven status. This >> applis both to the membership fee but also to the allocation >> (service) provided. >> >> But as money is such a good consultant it would be beneficial to draw >> the attention of CFO:s to IP costs so that technical people cant just >> keep hands on all the IP:s just for future possibilities, fun to have >> such a big allocations etc reasons. Dont say it would be easy to give >> up allocations even if you would know you wont need it for several >> years 😊 >> >> So who wants my power of attorney paper to vote for a change in the >> Ripe summit 😊 ? I dont have time to attend. >> >> Would someone be interested to put up a poll about this matter to >> maybe decrease the amount of opinions expressed on this email list >> and a link to the poll to this list of course? >> >> For example there could be the following 3 options, >> 1) Current >> 2) Ripe B option >> 3) C-class based costs (100 euros per C-class), minimum on 1000 euros >> if less than 10 c-classes. >> Examples: >> -> A - class owner (dont think ripe ncc members have any ? But >> World has and maybe good ideas spread 😊) : Approx 6 million euros/year. >> -> B- class owner: Approx 25 500 euros (allready quite little!) / >> year >> -> 50 c-classes: : 5000 euros / year >> >> >> Lets say one legacy user would own several B -classes it would draw >> the attention of economy department when the bill arrives and atleast >> internal discussion. Maybe this pricing would still be a bit low and >> i think there should anyway be a minimum membership fee. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Hans Govenius >> >> -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- >> Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> >> Puolesta Martin Millnert >> Lähetetty: keskiviikko 17. huhtikuuta 2019 23.24 >> Vastaanottaja: Bunea TELECOM <suport at bunea.eu> >> Kopio: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>; members-discuss at ripe.net >> Aihe: Re: [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - >> Two Options to Vote On >> >> On 2019-04-17, at 23:10:40, Bunea TELECOM wrote: >>>> Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI >>>> assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie >>>> around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to >>>> have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back. >>> >>> No because it will charge the same for a /16 as for a /24. And it’s >>> not fair that after you pay 4k euros for a /24 to pay 50 euros more >>> yearly, unlike some older LIRs that paid next to nothing for a /20 >>> let’s say. >> Argument in favor of Scheme B vs per-IPv4-cost: >> - Early adopters of ISP businesses gets benefits - good for early >> adopters who on average have much, much larger allocations than >> larger sets of /22s or /24s. >> - Potentially easier for RIPE NCC to implement as it is based on >> resource without the level of detail of what resource it is >> >> Arguments in favor of per-IPv4-cost vs Scheme B: >> - RIPE NCC should not give competetive advantage to early adopters / >> incumbents - there is anti trust regulation that potentially comes >> into play in EU around these things. >> - Per IPv4 address costing is much more fair obviously, and gives >> incentives forr holders of the larger allocations (which ought to >> account for the vast majority of RIPE NCC space) to optimize and >> return space they do not use. >> - RIPE NCC implementation is a technical implementation question, and >> not a policy/governance question. >> >> >> Per-IPv4-cost is not one of the presented choices however. The >> existing flat fee (option A) is much more simple and less unfair than >> option B. >> >> I have missed the logic for option B as an attempt to solve the cost >> issues. Considering the level of rebates RIPE NCC is handing out >> since there is so vast surpluses of the budget, I wonder why fee just >> isn't lowered instead? I've heard the argument "It shouldn't be too >> cheap", but I disagree with that. It's a bit silly to transfer large >> amounts of money to RIPE NCC only for them to transfer it back, and >> it doesn't incentivize cost efficiency within the NCC either, I imagine. >> >> >> I'll advise the handful of LIRs I'm involved with to go for option A, >> not because it saves them money but because option B tilts the entire >> LIR world. >> >> Best, >> -- >> Martin Millnert >> BrainMill AB >> https://www.brainmill.com >> >> >>> If we keep option B we might as well divide the LIRs into two >>> separate types: >>> >>> pre-exaustion (have to pay the 50 euros) post-exaution (exempt from >>> paying the 50 euros) >>> >>> Thanks >>> — >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Petru Bunea / CEO >>> suport at bunea.eu <mailto:suport at bunea.eu> / +40752481282 >>> <tel:+40752481282> Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT >>> http://www.bunea.eu <http://www.bunea.eu/> / +40745495495 >>> <tel:+40745495495> >>> >>>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 23:06, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:42:15PM +0300, Andrejs Guba wrote: >>>>> So i repeat. It will be interesting to listen to someone who can >>>>> describe his logic in proposed scheme B. >>>> I didn't propose it, but I like scheme B. >>>> >>>> Why? Because it creates incentives to return unused ASNs, unused PI >>>> assignment (or sell them off), etc - instead of just having them lie >>>> around, unused. If you *need* something, 50 EUR is ok, but "just to >>>> have it", it might be annoying enough to give it back. >>>> >>>> (I returned one of my ASNs when they did still cost money, back >>>> before we changed the charging scheme last time - exactly because) >>>> >>>> Gert Doering >>>> -- NetMaster >>>> -- >>>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >>>> >>>> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, >>>> Michael Emmer >>>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. >>>> Grundner-Culemann >>>> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >>>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>>> Unsubscribe: >>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bune >>>> a.eu >>> _______________________________________________ >>> members-discuss mailing list >>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40brainmill.com >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss at ripe.net >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40netprotect.ro > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/jac.kloots%40surfnet.nl -- Jac Kloots Teamlead Network Services Network Department SURFnet
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]