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

And training credits to be given in a form redeemable for cash if not used
....

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024, 12:23 ivaylo, <ivaylo at bglans.net> wrote:

>
> Hello Kai
>
> >> Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members
> >
> > Says who?
>
> From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested
> parties, and particularly the LIRs
>
> All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be
> treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented
> by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and
> impartial treatment of the members/requestors.
>
> The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit
> and open membership association.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This pont 4. is a constitution about the RIRs. In the light of equal
> membership fees and equal rights leads to equal (fair) resource
> distribution to _ALL_ members/requestors no matter their wish or
> interests ! All RIPE policies and guidelines contrary to this point 4
> implemented during the years can be treated as invalid. I am prety sure
> the RIPE NCC board are inteligent, respectable , with high sense of
> responsibility people and will agree with me. They offer flat
> charging scheme because we (members) want such, so we go with it and with
> all consequences wich it will lead. If we (members) agree on something
> else they (The NCC board) will offer it to vote, and if is accepted we go
> with it and with all its consequences again.
>
>
> >> Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged,
> >
> > How/why that?
>
> How: Automatic, IRR+ROA of the moved block will not be keep same. Login in
>       your LIR panel account and search  the functions you have.
> Why: To prevent disruption in the work of the donor LIR until/if
>       agreement between 2 LIRs is reached. Even in the first 3 months
>       after the redistribution, delete/change of these object should
>       be disabled, after that period the Receiving LIR have rights to
>       modify the objects.
>
>
> >> 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?
> >
> No ! Delegated 16 bit ASNs to RIPE NCC are 25029 source:
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml
>
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> I Partitialy agree. /48 IPV6 do not match /24 IPV4 equivalent in many
> cases (access operators), There are no exact equivalent, but more close,
> comfort to work and scalable network logic with current technical
> documents and solutions is /32 IPV6 to /24 IPV4 (if you need deeper
> technical explain write me outside of the mail list).
>
> I agree the charging scheme base on /24 IPV4 block, but to prevent GRT
> (Global Routing Table) prefixes increase and big deagregation, better is
> on /22 to /18 IPV4 blocks. The results will be same in case of flat ladder
> up scheme (most fair to all). If we go exponential decreasing up, then we
> should choise smaller block size as a base.
>
> Again from the IANA documents:
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml
>
> To RIPE NCC are allocated 35 x /8 IPV4 BLOCKs and 7 x /8 legacy . Some of
> this space is transfered outside of RIPE / returned to IANA, but to know
> exact numbers must do querries (2752512) for each /24 or somebody of the
> RIPE staff to give exact number. When we have this information and with
> target budget of 42M (I prefer the budget to be 60M-65M, with standart
> method of over colleted redistribution for the next year. Also we can
> push for budget reduction and to vote wich projects to support and wich
> not) we will be able to do much more precise calculations.
>
>
>
> Ivaylo Josifov
> VarnaIX / Varteh LTD
> +359 52 969393
> Varna, Bulgaria
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Kai Siering via members-discuss 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -kai
> >
> > --
> > Kai Siering
> > Senior System Engineer
> >
> > mail.de GmbH
> > M?nsterstra?e 3
> > D-33330 G?tersloh
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > Gesch?ftsf?hrender 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/ivaylo%40bglans.net
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.newton%40f4rn.org.uk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240413/382070be/attachment-0001.html>