[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

Hi Arash,

Primarily, as others have noted, RIPE is a membership body and we only pay
for membership.

If there's a problem with address utilisation at an LIR then this should be
a policy issue and not financial.


I don't think that it is possible to meet everyones IPv4 needs these days
and there will always be people unhappy about whatever policy is decided.

Unfortunately it's a very finite resource with all too much demand.


Also, with exception to people registering multiple LIRs (which results in
extra fees for RIPE as it is), people should have to be purchasing IPv4
addresses with exception to the one /22 they're allocated from the last
remaining /8.


My thoughts are that the only people who would be hit hard by this are the
old LIRs with lots of IP space.

There's no reason to punish these LIRs financially but instead we could
simply ensure that their utilisation is sufficient and, if not, force them
to be splitting their larger allocations into smaller ones and re-claim
some parts of this for the pool.


I see a follow up reply stating that savvy network guys could just spin up
a bunch of VMs in next to no time to satisfy the RIPE check, that's why I'm
suggesting very regular scanning that not only checks IPs ping but also
checks that they host a service which would justify the requirement for the
IPv4 IP Address.

RIPE could demand that companies allow them through firewalls for these
checks, or risk losing their allocations entirely, and if networks are not
publicly routable then there's no justified reason to have that on publicly
addressable IPv4 space.

We have both RFC 1918 and RFC 6598 for that.


For the record, we only hold one /22 and so my points are not trying to
protect our own financial interests.


All the best,

Iain


Iain Kay
Consider IT Limited
Superior IT Support


On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 13:32, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Can you please explain why you think it is not the right way to go?
>
> I know everyone likes to pay less, and majority of NCC members are the one
> with just one /22.
>
> I wish one day NCC management reach to this point to let the members have
> multiple options to choose from using their votes. (fixed and variable
> yearly charge based on resources and any other possible option)
>
> Regards,
>
> Arash
>
> <iain.kay at considerit.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way
>> to go about it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Azer Karyagdy wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hello Ivaylo,
>>> >
>>> > You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is
>>> non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for
>>> membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation
>>> with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking
>>> about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i
>>> believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and
>>> it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual
>>> practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is
>>> resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this.
>>> Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE
>>> cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing?
>>> >
>>> > Best Regards
>>> > Azer
>>> >
>>> > ----- ???????? ????????? -----
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello, Gert
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we
>>> >> will
>>> >> have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
>>> >>
>>> >> BUT....
>>> >>
>>> >> To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same
>>> >> time.
>>> >> This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and
>>> >> other
>>> >> have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to
>>> >> become
>>> >> 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are
>>> >> going on
>>> >> that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy
>>> >> money from us fast.
>>> >>
>>> >> Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see
>>> >> other
>>> >> way than to be calculate on consumed resources.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the
>>> >> past.
>>> >> Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories
>>> >> with
>>> >> complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year
>>> >> and
>>> >> something like this.
>>> >>
>>> >> Now I am talking about such scheme:
>>> >>
>>> >> LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee:
>>> >> 350 EURO
>>> >>
>>> >> LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee:
>>> >> 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO =  380 EURO
>>> >>
>>> >> LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee:
>>> >> 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO
>>> >>
>>> >> LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee:
>>> >> 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO
>>> >>
>>> >> Also changing in rules:
>>> >> LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If
>>> >> you
>>> >> need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused
>>> >> resources
>>> >> return to RIPE NCC.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Ivaylo Josifov
>>> >> Varteh LTD
>>> >> Varna Bulgaria
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue
>>> >>> srl wrote:
>>> >>>> this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the
>>> >>>> same
>>> >>>> plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if
>>> >>>> you
>>> >>>> don't use it...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4".  The big telcos
>>> >>> with
>>> >>> tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need*
>>> >>> all IPv4
>>> >>> there is.  We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 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/azer%40karyagdy.com
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > members-discuss mailing list
>>> > members-discuss at ripe.net
>>> > https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>> > Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> members-discuss mailing list
>>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/iain.kay%40considerit.co.uk
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/arash.naderpour%40gmail.com
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20190118/bc4818fc/attachment.html>