<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="RU" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi Dmitry,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Perhaps that line was added automatically:) - Yes you are right at 100%, unfortunately I can’t remove it but I will change this label to Public.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> what is your opinion re charging per resource allocated - of course we are interested not to increase our payment. I believe everybody interested in the same. But since we have inflation, this is impossible. So, in my opinion, for basic maintenance of RIRs over the long term, we should use a categorical model, as other RIRs do, and this is the most “fair” way. And a discount for those who don’t have IPv4 at all, I think it’s also possible this could be a separate category or a set of categories.<o:p></o:p> Such things like transfer or ASN registration, etc. as one-time operations have to be bill separately sins they consumes RIPE employee time (some predicted amount of time per operation).<o:p></o:p> As for the services like RPKI, learning, RIPE Atlas etc. I would prefer to order them by month or year based subscription. As for any VAS some members need them and some don’t.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> We had IPv6 before Kyivstar” - 😊 yes, it’s true.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -----Original Message----- From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk@hostmaster.ua> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 6:52 PM To: Evgeniy Brodskiy <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> Cc: Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> [Ви нечасто отримуєте електронні листи від <a href="mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua"> dk@hostmaster.ua</a>. Дізнайтеся, чому це важливо: <a href="https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification">https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification</a> ]<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> On 11 Apr 2024, at 16:55, Evgeniy Brodskiy via members-discuss <<a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> > Confidential/Конфіденційно<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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:)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> > Why do you think this statement is correct: “They are the main source of work for RIPE employees.” ??<o:p></o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> > 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.<o:p></o:p> > If you think about different "non-MAIN" services like Learning, then there is no difference between big and small LIR at all.<o:p></o:p> > Resources do not reflect all of these dependencies. And again you are talking about fairness.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> (Deleting hundreds of quoted lines below.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> — <a href="mailto:dk@hostmaster.ua">dk@hostmaster.ua</a> “We had IPv6 before Kyivstar”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p> > From: members-discuss <<a href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a>> On Behalf Of Mihail Fedorov<o:p></o:p> > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:39 PM<o:p></o:p> > Cc: <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a><o:p></o:p> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals<o:p></o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> > Charging per ASN is even worse than just price increase. It is terrible and killing even more LIRs<o:p></o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> > 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.<o:p></o:p> > 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.<o:p></o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> > Actually working LIRs also have business contracts/logic already established on current charging scheme and adding ASN fee will kill them.<o:p></o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> > Once again - why not just bill based on resources? It’s extremely easy. Oh, right, resource holders won’t like it :<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>