[members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

Where have I said it should be 1 EUR across the board? 

It doesn’t have to be 1 EUR, but it also doesn’t have to be 333 the difference. It can be progressively cheaper, but not at such a large difference. 

Also, FYI, UK Gov or any Gov, could always put back IPv4 if they find it to be too expensive. Just like they force people and companies to put back on the market real estate that have a very high yearly tax. How would that work out for a change? Call this a tax hike on public property, like IP addresses. Maybe they would in fact like it, since it’s their way of doing business.

Otherwise, with this model, we will just move the burden from the big ISP/companies/resource holders to the smaller ones. 

Thanks.

> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:25, Daniel Pearson <daniel at privatesystems.net> wrote:
> 
> I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to pay 1 Euro per IP for a /8
> 
> Let me know how that conversation goes :)
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea wrote:
>> This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example. 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>>> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi at kompex.pl <mailto:gabi at kompex.pl>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> very good example Sebastian 
>>> 
>>> Others are doing it and Europe should too 
>>> 
>>> We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages.
>>> We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.
>>> 
>>> The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay 
>>> they need to be calculated 
>>> 
>>> But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Pozdrawiam
>>> Gabriel Sulka
>>> 
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX
>>> 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A
>>> tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00
>>> www.kompex.pl <http://www.kompex.pl/> ; bok at kompex.pl <mailto:bok at kompex.pl> ; kompex at nowytarg.net <mailto:kompex at nowytarg.net>
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>> On Behalf Of
>>> Sebastien Brossier
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM
>>> To: members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
>>> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
>>> 
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>> I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting
>>> options.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *1 - Introduction:*
>>> 
>>> This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not 
>>> familiar with this, you can see an example here:
>>> https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f <https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f>
>>> ees-calculator/
>>> 
>>> The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not 
>>> linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much 
>>> resources.
>>> The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with 
>>> infinite granularity (no categories).
>>> 
>>> It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain 
>>> viable when IPv4 has disappeared.
>>> 
>>> I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has 
>>> larger initial allocations.
>>> 
>>> Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as 
>>> before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate 
>>> debate on these subjects at a later time.
>>> 
>>> The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a 
>>> very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain 
>>> existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous 
>>> and diverse.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *2 - Charging scheme:*
>>> 
>>> (Warning: math incoming !)
>>> 
>>> IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated
>>>              (excluding independent assignments and legacy)
>>> IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated
>>>              (excluding independent assignments)
>>> 
>>> Base_Fee = 638 EUR
>>> Bit_Factor = 1.31
>>> Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR
>>> Offset_IPv4 = 8
>>> Offset_IPv6 = 24
>>> 
>>> IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4)
>>> IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)
>>> 
>>> Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee)
>>>         + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)
>>> 
>>> My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average 
>>> fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it 
>>> should provide the same budget as the other options.
>>> If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can 
>>> adjust Base_Fee.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *3 - Examples:*
>>> 
>>> 50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.
>>> 
>>> No allocations:			  500 EUR
>>> IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 	  638 EUR
>>> IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 	  835 EUR
>>> IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 	 1094 EUR
>>> IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 	 1434 EUR
>>> IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 	 1878 EUR
>>> IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 	 2461 EUR
>>> IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 	 3224 EUR
>>> IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 	 4223 EUR
>>> IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 	 5533 EUR
>>> IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 	 7248 EUR
>>> IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 	 9495 EUR
>>> IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 	12439 EUR
>>> IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 	16295 EUR
>>> IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 	21347 EUR
>>> IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 	27965 EUR
>>> IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 	36634 EUR
>>> IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 	47991 EUR
>>> 
>>> Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.
>>> 
>>> There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers.
>>> 
>>> If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee 
>>> schedule of the other RIRs.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you if you've read this far.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Sebastien Brossier
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> members-discuss mailing list
>>> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/ <https://mailman.ripe.net/>
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> members-discuss mailing list
>>> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/ <https://mailman.ripe.net/>
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
>> https://mailman.ripe.net/ <https://mailman.ripe.net/>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240416/81a2f16c/attachment-0001.html>