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

Hi,

> 
> 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.

In a perfect world where the lir rationally used the space perhaps but more likely it would force them to decide next year to
A) renumber their network/change allocations made to customers and have them agree to renumber    to free up a block/blocks of contiguous space 
B) pay more fees

In either case it makes the lir costs rise.
I have seen plenty of providers with a /24 per pop/router/fill in whatever with only a couple of customers assigned from each, they are used to having the space...
Businesses  will then plan to recoup the costs sustained and monetize the IPs not return them to ripe, so it could increase the ips being leased or sold.

Brian