<div dir="auto">And training credits to be given in a form redeemable for cash if not used ....</div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 13 Apr 2024, 12:23 ivaylo, <<a href="mailto:ivaylo@bglans.net">ivaylo@bglans.net</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> 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: <a href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml</a> > 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: <a href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml</a> 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 > > <a href="http://mail.de" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">mail.de</a> 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: <a href="mailto:k.siering@team.mail.de" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">k.siering@team.mail.de</a> > Web: <a href="https://mail.de/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.de/</a> > > Gesch?ftsf?hrender Gesellschafter: > Fabian Bock > > Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt > Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI > Steuernummer 18 293 20020 > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> > <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> > Unsubscribe: > <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net</a> > _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.newton%40f4rn.org.uk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.newton%40f4rn.org.uk</a> </blockquote></div>