[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals

On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <members-discuss at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Confidential/Конфіденційно

Just a note: you are posting on mailing list which is archived so everyone can read every post, yours too. Perhaps that line was added automatically:)

> 
> Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??
> 
> Even if you think about auditing or maintaining RIPE DB, it would be strange to think that working with /16 requires 256 times more time and effort than working with /24.
> If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all.
> Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.

In the fairness of use of learning resources, RPKI, Training you are correct, yet we are talking about “cost of doing business” resources.  Since you seem to represent a biggest mobile telecom of Ukraine, Kyivstar, and also the only IPv6-enabled large ISP in the country (thanks for that btw) - what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated, either by category method, or logarithmic method, or some other (number of resources in use, objects in the database, etc.). Your company makes heavy use of IPv4 and has millions of subscribers: what does “fair” sounds like to you? Do you support extra fees for those who have IPv4 available, or discount for those who have to make do with IPv6 only?

(Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)

— dk at hostmaster.ua “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”

> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM
> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
> 
> Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs
> 
> Imagine rather new LIR who is trying to do business based on what is LIR intended for - providing LIR services to consumers. For example 30 clients who requested ASN sponsorship during year.
> If charged per ASN they will pay twice more than huge corporations serving only purpose of their own. Those typically have just 1-2 ASNs and tons of resources attached to it. They are main source of work for RIPE staff and they should be funding expensive projects like Atlas and others.
> 
> Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.
> 
> Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :