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

On 03/05/2023 18:56, Brian Turnbow via members-discuss 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.


Hello,

Your example describes a LIR who got allocated more IPv4 than needed. In 
that case, they can return the extra to RIPE or sell it.
This example is actually in favour of model A: more IPv4 will be made 
available.


Sebastien Brossier