[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

hello, Mohammad

First a LIR CAN NOT _SELL_ nor MUST TRY TO _SELL_ any resources that 
it holds. These resources are not LIR properties. The main bussines of LIR 
_MUST_ be in IT sector not in trading sector right ? If somebody want to 
do trading with resources that not belongs to him let go to Wall street 
right ? So from every point where you look at open market is one big crap.

Also how can we resolve the problem with FAIR charging scheme. Now we have 
somebody who pay rent for skyscraper and other who pay rent for tent, but 
both pays same amount of money. Is it fair ?


For IPV6 we should apply same charging scheme. On registration LIR can get 
/32 net IPV6 for each aditional /32 +1 EURO. Off course that price may go 
up or down in depend of what is collected from annual fees to can cover 
the budget calculated by the formula I posted in previous mail.

When someday we using only IPV6 and IF all LIRs needs only 1 x /32 
(very very unlikely) or only few LIRs get couple extra /32 IPV6 (unlikely)
then can lift these 350 euro annual fee to balance the budget.

Next week I will summarize everything with changes in one mail and will 
post again. It is very good and productive to hear as many oppinions as 
posible, also some official staff from RIPE NCC to say what what they 
think.

Have a nice weekend.

Ivaylo Josifov
Varteh LTD
Varna Bulgaria



On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Mohammad Oslani wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am sure the same discussion we had in the ARIN mailing list some years ago. And the result of that discussion was, RIRs are not the judges and can not decide that no one can sell their IPs on the open market. The transfer policy is clear enough I think. However, this open market for IPv4 will last only some years and then we all have to use IPv6 and everything is normal again.
>
>
>
> January 18, 2019 6:00 AM, info at cowmedia.de wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way to
>>> go about it.
>>
>> But I do. I am a relatively new LIR (only 3 years membership) and have one of
>> the last /22. Even in a membership and non-profit schema it is possible to
>> design usage based billing procedure (some other same type organisations does
>> this as well).
>> And yes, definitively there is a different value you get based on the amount
>> of ip allocations you have assigned to your LIR because you make in the end
>> either money directly out of it (for example for server hosting companys) or
>> indirectly. And the one who have more resources can sell more service and
>> utilize them other more. And in the market there is a value/cost arround each
>> /24 currently very high.
>> We should setup a policy that dissallow selling ip space on the normal market.
>> Only RIPE should be the one managing this and giving resources to members and
>> also getting them back from them.
>> A usage based member ship fee would be fair for every members and solve a lot
>> of issues we currently have. And as the member fee will be discussed and
>> approved every year there is already for next year the chance to change it
>> this way.
>>
>>> I think it would be better to more regularly scan allocated resources and
>>> re-claim those which are not actively in use.
>>
>> Theoretically this sounds a good idea. I have personally not used my full /22
>> yet, but at least one address in any of them. But if an allocated resource is
>> used or not can not always be found out externally. THere can be regstriected
>> acess with no direct routing. Usage of ip's only internally and many more. I
>> don't think there should be any control for already assigned resources (this
>> is different when requesting new resources) as a different charging scheme
>> would automatically bring LIR's to a better management of the allocations and
>> they will give back resources by themself. If a company really require the
>> resources for future expansion there should be no need for them to give it
>> back (but for sure they will have to pay the member fee for it)
>>
>>> I'd also hope that everyone taking the time to participate in this
>>> discussion has already rolled out IPv6 alongside their IPv4.
>>
>> I personally have, but this depends on the requirements of LIRs and their
>> customer. If they only host applications that right now doesnt support IPv6
>> then there is no really need to deploy it already now. But in general I agree
>> that everything should be deployed in dual stack as soon as possible till a
>> switch-over can be made or even better if for isolated controlled use v6 only
>> can be utilized.
>>
>>> If everyone is waiting for others to deploy then we're going to get nowhere.
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net
>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mohammad%40hugeserver.com
>
>
> --
> Mohammad Oslani
> HugeServer Networks, LLC | Premium Dedicated Servers and Colocation
> Mohammad at HugeServer.com | O : 888-842-8570 x1200 | F : 213-402-6061
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>