[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024

Hi all and specifically Brian,

On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 14:57, Brian Turnbow via members-discuss <
members-discuss at ripe.net> wrote:

> What makes  the pay per category model  "A" as proposed impossible for me
> to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs.
> When I started working  with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a
> /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default.
> You then requested an AS.
> Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your  v6
> allocation.
> So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29)
> That should be the bare minimum for small as  it is what any long standing
> lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the
> high end of the scale.
> It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018
> with much less IP  resources, just that they started first.
> Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more
> resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit
> into the category.
>

I think, it depends on how you look at it.
In case you have this address space and you use it, you probably have some
income from it that allows you to pay for it. In case you are not using it
(or you cannot afford it), you are free to transfer parts of your address
space to reduce your allocation and thus your category.
This has a few consequences: It may deaggregate the address space (imagine
you are transferring a /24 out of your /19) and thus increase cost for
everyone. On the other hand it will potentially lower the market price for
IP addresses which will lower the cost for late-comers.
So one could look at model A as incentive to IPv4 conservation after the
run-out.

André
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230504/e56300fc/attachment-0001.html>