From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." ====
When money is mentioned, people seem to **assume** that the people who mention money are against spending it. What really may be happening is that people are against **hiding** the costs, or denying the costs, or claiming someone is in this "for the good of the community", when it is very clear that year after year, they are in it for the money and the good times and the travel and whatever perks they can get from doing almost nothing but saying to a large group of other people, "here, you take 10, you take 20, 30 goes there, and 40 goes over there." It is hard for people to imagine that the process of **selling uniqueness** (or leasing it), has value.
As people can see, it now takes about 30 people to do what one person can do. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space That multiplies the costs by a factor of 30. Someone has to pay for that. There is no free lunch.
This is a classic Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) structure. The 30 people are not really required, it is really a few people surrounded by others, working to get into the game, to find their place in the pyramid. Labor unions also have the same pattern or structure. Workers may ask, "What does my $5 per month do ?", answer, "It pays to have someone collect the $5". Some may have a hard time seeing the **value** if it is reduced to a simple circular situation. If enough people and money are added to the structure, then it all becomes much harder to sort out, and reduce to the simple reality that
have a large vested interest in making sure the structure remains in place and that all of the people in the lower levels of the structure keep it in place. It costs time and money to keep it in place. People at the top of the structure have to make sure that not too much money flows to the top because then it would become too obvious what is going on. Instead, they have to smooth over the lower levels and short-circuit the cash-flow and customers to keep the MLM structure expanding, while maintaining the top with a percentage going to the house. If one wants to "play" with a similar structure, they can learn to operate a .CASINO. http://casinoempire.sierra.com/casino.htm
http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada April 8, 2002
called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT
All you have to do is get some /8s and you can lease them...RIPE is only one small Registry... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> To: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lars@marowsky-bree.de>; "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss.
I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces
workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding later. I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again.
I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure
Please note that on principle I disagree with pretty much everything Jim Fleming waffles about. Jim, please do not use my opinions to expound your own. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net> To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>; "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lars@marowsky-bree.de>; "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 1:31 PM Subject: "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." those at the top of the structures the that
they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a catastrophe - or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for.
OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go and read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I cannot comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break down and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have asked (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next year. I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am supporting a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even.
(Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it necessary to be a LIR?")
For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other way to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the PA renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic business. In terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential, even if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is too risky.
So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect).
Peter