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

> Price you pay is not exactly amount of resources. Otherwise LIRs without v4 subnets should pay zero :)
Yes, but 333 times the difference is by any definition nowhere near “not exactly”. LIRs without v4 subnets do not cause a lot of tickets, do they? Yes, they should not pay zero, and 500 EUR seems a good and fair amount to start with. Don’t have any comment there. 

> We are not trying to tax resource holders. Scheme exists to somehow evaluate possibilities of LIR tied to their real size and RIPE budget needs. It will never be exact - someone always will be unhappy. 
You are right, this is not tax. Taxes usually go progressively, not regressively. The mentioned calculation and example is regressing in money paid per resource, and is doing nothing more than encourage big resource holders to merge on bigger and bigger LIR accounts, rather than leave more IPv4 space back into the market. Honestly, 50.000 EUR for someone that has a /8 is around 4.000 EUR per month. That is pocket change, and is NOT a motivation to release more IPv4 space back into the market.

Honestly, seeing small LIRs protecting huge / whale resource holders reminds me of the workers that protect the interest of billionaires. 

Thanks

> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:37, Mihail Fedorov <mihail at fedorov.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello.
> 
> Very good example of what it actually can be - with real math. Thank you!
> 
> I once again advise to put less charges on IPv6. Genrally it’s a good and correct approach. But in current reality this will result need to restructure v6 subnets for everyone, who opted into /29 but using /32 (which is what many small LIRs do) and create additional work for everyone. In some distant future there will be no difference but for now every occasion to motivate networks to have IPv6 should be valued.
> 
> Apart from that that’s the scheme I would be happy to vote for.
> 
>> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:21, Petru Bunea <suport at bunea.eu <mailto:suport at bunea.eu>> 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. 
> 
> We are not trying to tax resource holders. Scheme exists to somehow evaluate possibilities of LIR tied to their real size and RIPE budget needs. It will never be exact - someone always will be unhappy. But this is how *all* other RIRs are charging.
> 
> Price you pay is not exactly amount of resources. Otherwise LIRs without v4 subnets should pay zero :)
> 
> Current alternative is everyone paying twice of what you mentioned regardless of resources.
> 
>> 
>> 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/mihail%40fedorov.net <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240416/5bb161f3/attachment-0001.html>