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

Hello.

> On 12 Apr 2024, at 23:58, Kai Siering via members-discuss <members-discuss at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Moin,
> 
>> am 12.04.24 um 20:17 schrieb ivaylo:
>> 
>> Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
> 
> Says who?
> 
>> Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
> 
> How/why that?
> 
>> We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN delegated to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN , Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope.
> 
> There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC?
> 
>> Finally If you dont like such fair/equal scenario (RIPE NCC will be obliged to apply it with flat equal fee for all LIRs = flat equal resource spread to all LIRs),
> 
> First of all, I see no legal reason for your claim, the NCC would have to distribute the it's available resources equally among its members. Other RIRs don't either, and it makes no sense to e. g. force an /16 v4 on us if we're happy with an /22. Needs-based distribution, the current modus operandi, does make much more sense.
> 
>> a fair and long term sustainable fee scheme for at least the next 10 years wich will cover the RIPE NCC budget and guarantee predictable and stable bussiness climate to ALL !
> 
> I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme – bill any /24 equivalent, any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the holding LIR – in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all current activities unchanged.

Correction 1: you can not base fee on IPv6 /48. Every LIR now is free to get (and gets) /29, which is equivalent of 524000 /48 subnets. Making them with cost will create absolutely unnessary motivation to replan and shrink IPv6 allocations and return some of them. Unlike with v4 this is not needed to anyone.

> 
> Having looked at the schemes of other RIRs, maybe some inverse exponential function makes more sense than simply count an /8 equivalent as 65536 times /24. But I'd still prefer a straight formula instead of categories. And a member's vote on any and all activity starting with FY 2025.

Any exponential or ”levels” based fee distribution will only create more motivation into cheating, splitting or consolidating multiple LIRs or other complex “schemes”, what was actively done in the past, mostly for the purpose of /24 waiting list. Flat IPv4 /32 fee avoids any need for this - makes everything clean, simple and fair.

> 
> Regards,
> -kai
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net