[members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning

* Arnaud BRAND <arnaud.brand--ripencc at tib.cc> [2019-04-23 15:08]:
> I agree with you that almost all our benefits/margins come from the
> bandwidth part of the service.
> In fact I think the "renting" fees we bill for IPv4 addresses do not even
> pay for our RIPE membership.
>
> They're just there so customers don't ask for 100IP each.
> So, no we do not make any money from renting IPv4 addresses neither.

So why do you say in your first mail that "LIR's incomes derive
primarily from the amount of IPv4 space they can rent to their
customers"? You now say that the amount your customer pays does not
even cover the RIPE membership.
> 
> But it is also quite clear that the more IPv4 addresses you have, the more
> customers you can serve and the more money you can make on the services
> provided via these IPv4 addresses.
> So it seems like a good index on which to base LIR fees, doesn't it ?
> That was my point/way of thinking.

To be honest, no. It is not a good index. If your business growth
depends on availability of IPv4 addresses it will fail. What exactly
is the point on basing the fees on IPv4 blocks now? What is the goal
this would achieve? IPv4 is over. People are fighting for scraps
instead of thinking of solutions (like moving to IPv6).

Yes you can rent IPv4 space to your customers and if you need more
space you can get it at the transfer market. The price should then be
reflected in the price your customer pays. You could also use IPv6 and
DS-Lite and cut the costs. But IPv4 will not magically turn up when
you change the RIPE NCC charging scheme.

> And I proposed very low fees (€0.01 per /24 per year) which should not have
> any impact on the financial stability of our fellow LIRs.
> Even those sitting on these public resources like anti-competitive
> speculators.
> So, why not ?

If it has no impact what exactly is the goal of this then? RIPE NCC is
a membership organisation, not a shop for IPv4 space.

Regards

Sebastian