[members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Matej Šerc
matej.serc at elmitel.com
Fri Apr 19 12:03:27 CEST 2019
I think that this way of "charging per number of delegated IP addresses" is the fairest one. It could be based on v4 address usage in a way where v6 addresses would be less "expensive" and will therefore (although I read and agree with previous comments that the price should not be the primary incentive for v4-to-v6 migration) motivate quicker migration to v6. LIRs that have more addresses, provide more services and are able to pay more. Regards, Matej Serc Sebastian Malek je 19.4.2019 ob 11:56 napisal: > In my opinion we should keep the current scheme. > > Splitting allocations in the RIPE DB just for this reason makes *no* > sense. > > If you want to charge per IP or per allocation, it would be better to > take the IP count from the LIR portal and calculate the fee based on that. > > Regards, > Sebastian > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:53 AM ivaylo <ivaylo at bglans.net > <mailto:ivaylo at bglans.net>> wrote: > > > >From network point of view nothing will change, Cynthia. > > You can still aggregate your announces. See this document point 7.2 > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-399 > > Ivaylo Josifov > Varteh LTD > > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Cynthia Revstr?m wrote: > > > From a networking point of view, this would be extremely > idiotic, you would > > fill up routers' memory with routes and take down the internet > if you did > > this. > > > > Splitting blocks is just idiotic. > > > > - Cynthia > > > > On 2019-04-19 11:03, ivaylo wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> Scheme B will work good and fair to all only with one condition > - If ripe > >> split IPV4 ALLOCATED PA blocks dedicated to LIRs in maximum /22 > (better > >> /24) blocks. > >> > >> Example: > >> Now LIR-1 have ALLOCATED-PA > >> 10.0.0.0/20 <http://10.0.0.0/20> > >> > >> After split LIR-1 will have ALLOCATED-PA > >> 10.0.0.0/22 <http://10.0.0.0/22> > >> 10.0.4.0/22 <http://10.0.4.0/22> > >> 10.0.8.0/22 <http://10.0.8.0/22> > >> 10.0.12.0/22 <http://10.0.12.0/22> > >> > >> For IPV6 same splir but based on /32 allocated-pa blocks > >> > >> From technical point of view this automatic split can be done easy. > >> Then Scheme B will be fair for all, and will cover what many of > us talking > >> for charging scheme based on IP resources. Also will cover that > RIPE NCC do > >> not "sell" IPV4 > >> > >> Ivaylo Josifov > >> Varteh LTD > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Christian Kaufmann wrote: > >> > >>> Dear members, > >>> > >>> First of all, I'd like to thank you for the feedback we > received from > >>> everyone so far, and special thanks to the people who gave > some more > >>> context and explanation. Trying to arrive at a charging scheme > that will > >>> please everyone is not an easy task. > >>> > >>> The reason the board proposes two charging schemes is because some > >>> members requested a real alternative and difference to the > existing "one > >>> LIR account-one fee" version we have right now and that is > more volume > >>> based. > >>> > >>> This came up previously in the charging scheme task force > discussions > >>> but also from individual members via emails or through > personal contact. > >>> Nigel and I promised at the last two GMs that we would present > a new one > >>> before the May GM this year. > >>> > >>> So what was the board's thinking in proposing these two models? > >>> > >>> Firstly, many people like the existing model and the board > believes that > >>> it covers the spirit of what some members want by maintaining the > >>> financial stability of the NCC while keeping fairness and > equality in > >>> mind. The board also does not want a price per IP model > because this > >>> would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP > addresses and > >>> the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in > >>> keeping with the idea of a membership association. > >>> > >>> We have also found in the past that having more than two > options does > >>> not work well from a voting perspective. This would add > considerable > >>> complexity to the voting in which resolutions must be approved > by more > >>> than 50% of voters to be adopted. > >>> > >>> The second charging scheme option is one that the board > believes offers > >>> a real alternative while staying away from the price per IP > aspect. > >>> > >>> The board's thinking in making the Option B proposal is that every > >>> registry entry consumes resources such as customer support time, > >>> database memory, registration time, etc. regardless of the > size of the > >>> allocation. A /24 and a /12 are not so different in this > regard so we > >>> see this as fair in terms of the work required by the RIPE NCC to > >>> maintain the registry. The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 > and IPv6 in > >>> the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed > to move > >>> people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven > >>> charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of > community > >>> rather than for the board or membership to decide on. > >>> > >>> I understand that the "volume-based" description could be seen as > >>> misleading and I apologise for the misunderstanding here. The > proposed > >>> model is based on registrations and not per IP as we do not > want to > >>> indicate that IP is a sellable product but rather the RIPE NCC > should > >>> charge members for the registry services it provides. > >>> > >>> The new charging scheme was also not proposed so that the RIPE > NCC could > >>> make more money - it takes the current budget and calculates > backwards > >>> to achieve the amount required to run the RIPE NCC. It is just a > >>> different model to share the current cost among members. > >>> > >>> Despite concerns that were raised on this list, the board took the > >>> request of some members to propose a new model very seriously > and we > >>> spent quite some time to discuss and model the current scenario by > >>> trying to be as fair as possible and sticking with the > principles of a > >>> membership organisation. > >>> > >>> Again, we are very thankful for your input and the feedback on > the two > >>> models. We will continue to monitor discussions and we will of > course > >>> present on the Charging Scheme 2020 at the upcoming GM. We > encourage you > >>> to register your vote so you can have the final say on the two > proposals. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Christian Kaufmann > >>> RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> members-discuss mailing list > >>> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> > >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > >>> Unsubscribe: > >>> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> members-discuss mailing list > >> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> > >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > >> Unsubscribe: > >> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re > > > > _______________________________________________ > > members-discuss mailing list > > members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/malek%40malek.li > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/matej.serc%40elmitel.com -- Matej Šerc ELMITEL d.o.o. Orehovci 1a SI-9250 Gornja Radgona T: +386 (0)2 564 88 60 M: +386 (0)40 167 589 F: +386 (0)2 564 88 61 Company W: www.elmitel.com E: matej.serc at elmitel.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20190419/159dad13/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]