[members-discuss] New pricing proposal - it goes out of control

As Kaj pointed out, to cut down on RIPE membership fees, people would rather _sell_ their 'unused' v4 space instead of returning it to the free pool for nothing. And checking the spreadsheet provided, one /17 is enough to fall into category 5, so you'd need to strip down to an /18 for category 4. Nah, Model 2 in the proposed form won't do anything with respect to redistribute IPv4 addresses, one way or the other.

Ignoring that we're talking about the RIPE _Membership_ Fee, and skipping the question 'what services shall the RIPE Association provide that are to be paid for by the membership fees', the only "reasonably fair" model in the current train of thoughts would be "pay per unit":

With presumably no more than roughly twice as many ASNs allocated as there are members (LIRs), I don't see much point in considering ASNs here.

But for IPv4 and IPv6, any /24 and /48 equivalent of space held by a member that was received from the RIPE NCC, the member pays a "routable ressource fee".

So a /8 holds 65536 /24, RIPE's budget is 50.000.000 EUR and, say, RIPE NCC received the equivalent of 5 /8 from IANA (ERX is ignored) which are handed out to, say, 100%, with 50% worldwide utilization of IPv4 still, each any every LIR would pay 76.29 EUR per /24 equivalent of address space it received from the RIPE NCC: 50,000,000/(65,536*5)*.5. Yes, that's 19531.00 EUR per /16 equivalent held, per year. Yes, holding onto IPv4 in the RIPE region would become pretty expensive. It's just to few addresses ...

For v6, only the amount of space currently handed out is to be considered: A /12 holds 68.719.476.736 /48s or 1,048,576 /32s. RIPE NCC received two /12 as of now. According to IANA, RIPE NCC has 823,671 /32 left. This gives 1.273.481 allocated /32 or 83.458.850.816 /48. That gives 0.0002995488 EUR per /48 ((50.000.000/83.458.850.816)*0.5), i. e. 157.05 EUR per /29 (which holds 524.288 /48) or 19.63 EUR per /32.

As these are moving targets, the math should be done on each 1st and the yearly amount should be the monthly average.

I'm a bit surprised that RIPE NCC should have allocated 1.273.481 /32 already, but the RIPE NCC should use more acurate data anyway.

But you get the idea: break down managed address space to the smallest routable object for IPv4 and IPv6, assign a divider "IPv4 vs IPv6" (I took 50:50, but to make IPv4 more expensive, 60:40 IMHO would be ok still). Adjust the budget per IP family and divide it by the corresponding number of smallest routable objects. Now one has a "budget share" in EUR per /24 and per /48, just multiply with each member's allocated space in smallest routable objects and you end up with a properly distributed financial burden, based purely on the member's address usage.

To me, that's more like a anual service fee than a membership fee, but well, If "[t]here was a clear majority in favour of charging based on resources held", that's the way to go. Ah, before implementing this, transfers out of the RIPE service region must be stopped of course.

Regards,
-kai


On 09.03.23 17:36, Josh Jameson wrote:
>
> The rationale is something called giving an *equal opportunity to everyone*. The same way you obtained IP addresses from IP addresses from RIPE - other people and organizations should be able to do the same.
>
> 1. There are many more LIRs with smaller allocations that would benefit from the new proposed pricing model two.
> 2. RIPE NCC would benefit from pricing model two because it encourages IP address recycling. More LIRs in the future.
> 3. Our members benefit by increasing the availability of IPv4.
>
> This is a limited resource of the internet. Nobody should be trying to control it as a commodity. Like land, it *should be taxed to prevent hoarding* and create a*healthy economy* based on*fair usage and work* to pay those taxes.
>
> There are orgs in RIPE that have tens of thousands of IPs they don't use and they don't pay for them. They don't have any interest in selling them either.
>
> I believe that just because an org became a member many years ago and got bucket loads of IPs for very little justification, doesn't mean they should be entitled to them in the future for no extra cost.
>
> As I've already stated many times, this is not going to be a popular opinion to any member with a large allocation of IP addresses, but to be frank, I don't care if I offend them - this is my opinion and a small org's voice can be heard on RIPE as much as a large org.
>
> Regards,
> Josh Jameson
> Technical Director
> ServeByte Ltd
>
>
> On 09/03/2023 16:05, Kaj Niemi wrote:
>>
>> Can you explain the rationale on returning addresses to RIPE NCC rather than selling them onward? There is a market for this thing which exists in limited amounts, you know. 😊
>>
>> Kaj
>>
>> *From:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> *On Behalf Of *Josh Jameson
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 9, 2023 16:08
>> *To:* members-discuss at ripe.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] New pricing proposal - it goes out of control
>>
>> Not to mention that ARIN ran out of IP addresses in 2015. They failed to preserve their resources long before any other region. It's not in the interest of RIPE NCC to follow that kind of logic.
>>
>> I see other members suggesting to not over complicate things and just charge per /24. That could result in the pool being replenished with recycled IP blocks, as I imagine many organizations won't want to continue to pay for IPs they will never use. Right now there's no incentive to recycle unused IP blocks and that has to change.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Josh Jameson
>> Technical Director
>> ServeByte Ltd
>>

-- 
Kai Siering
Senior System Engineer

mail.de GmbH
Münsterstraße 3
D-33330 Gütersloh

Tel.:    +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986
Fax:     +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987
E-Mail:k.siering at team.mail.de
Web:https://mail.de/

Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter:
Fabian Bock

Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt
Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI
Steuernummer 18 293 20020
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230310/a3617445/attachment.html>