[members-discuss] Regarding RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Two Options to Vote On

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://mailman.ripe.net/
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bune
>>>> a.eu
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> members-discuss mailing list
>>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/martin.millnert%40brainmill.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alexandru.doszlop%40netprotect.ro
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/jac.kloots%40surfnet.nl

-- 
Jac Kloots

Teamlead Network Services
Network Department
SURFnet