March 2026 - members-discuss-unmoderated

[Service Ticket #126913] - Regarding [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
by LARUS 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

1 0

Please Confirm To Continue
by ripe.net 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

1 0

[Service Ticket #126812] - Regarding [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
by LARUS 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Charging model discussion - keeping the system simple and transparent
by Matej 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Dear RIPE NCC and community, This is a transparent and simple charging scheme that we totally agree with. Best, Matej Serc From: bs(a)gemini.net.pl Sent: 11. marec 2026 13:05 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Charging model discussion - keeping the system simple and transparent Dear RIPE NCC and community, I would like to share a short observation regarding the ongoing discussion about the charging model. The original purpose of the RIR system, including RIPE NCC, was to maintain an orderly and transparent registry of Internet number resources. The role of the registry was primarily coordination, documentation and stewardship of address space usage for the benefit of the Internet as a whole. Today the IPv4 address pool is effectively closed. The total number of addresses is finite and well known, and the operational costs of RIPE NCC are publicly documented. Because of this, the basic parameters of the system are clear and measurable. Over time, IPv4 addresses have also acquired significant market value due to their scarcity. In some cases, the value of address holdings has become comparable to, or even larger than, the operational value of the organisations that originally received them. While this development is understandable in a scarce resource environment, it was not the primary objective of the registry system. At the same time, any change in the RIPE charging model would not significantly affect the market value of IPv4 addresses. The scarcity of IPv4 space will continue to determine its market dynamics regardless of the registry fee structure. However, a transparent and proportional charging approach could contribute to better stewardship and more efficient use of the remaining address space. It could also encourage organisations holding unused resources to reconsider their utilisation of this finite pool. From a purely mathematical perspective, the model can remain very simple and transparent. If the annual operational cost of RIPE NCC is divided by the total number of allocated IPv4 addresses in the RIPE region, we obtain the real cost of maintaining the system per address. In principle: total RIPE NCC operational cost ÷ total allocated IPv4 addresses = annual cost per IPv4 address Such an approach would be predictable, transparent and directly proportional to the resources being maintained by the registry. In addition, a modest administrative component could be introduced to support the maintenance of other services provided by RIPE NCC, such as operational infrastructure, security initiatives and community activities. This would allow the overall structure of fees to remain realistic and balanced, while still keeping the model simple and understandable. Keeping the charging model simple and aligned with the original coordination role of the RIR system may help preserve the long-term stability and neutrality of Internet number resource management. Kind regards Bartłomiej Sztefko

1 0

Charging model discussion - keeping the system simple and transparent
by Bartlomiej Sztefko 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Dear RIPE NCC and community, I would like to share a short observation regarding the ongoing discussion about the charging model. The original purpose of the RIR system, including RIPE NCC, was to maintain an orderly and transparent registry of Internet number resources. The role of the registry was primarily coordination, documentation and stewardship of address space usage for the benefit of the Internet as a whole. Today the IPv4 address pool is effectively closed. The total number of addresses is finite and well known, and the operational costs of RIPE NCC are publicly documented. Because of this, the basic parameters of the system are clear and measurable. Over time, IPv4 addresses have also acquired significant market value due to their scarcity. In some cases, the value of address holdings has become comparable to, or even larger than, the operational value of the organisations that originally received them. While this development is understandable in a scarce resource environment, it was not the primary objective of the registry system. At the same time, any change in the RIPE charging model would not significantly affect the market value of IPv4 addresses. The scarcity of IPv4 space will continue to determine its market dynamics regardless of the registry fee structure. However, a transparent and proportional charging approach could contribute to better stewardship and more efficient use of the remaining address space. It could also encourage organisations holding unused resources to reconsider their utilisation of this finite pool. From a purely mathematical perspective, the model can remain very simple and transparent. If the annual operational cost of RIPE NCC is divided by the total number of allocated IPv4 addresses in the RIPE region, we obtain the real cost of maintaining the system per address. In principle: total RIPE NCC operational cost ÷ total allocated IPv4 addresses = annual cost per IPv4 address Such an approach would be predictable, transparent and directly proportional to the resources being maintained by the registry. In addition, a modest administrative component could be introduced to support the maintenance of other services provided by RIPE NCC, such as operational infrastructure, security initiatives and community activities. This would allow the overall structure of fees to remain realistic and balanced, while still keeping the model simple and understandable. Keeping the charging model simple and aligned with the original coordination role of the RIR system may help preserve the long-term stability and neutrality of Internet number resource management. Kind regards Bartłomiej Sztefko

1 0

NCC Charging scheme
by ТзОВ "Інтелект Груп" 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Dear Members of the Working group, I hope you understand how difficult the situation in Ukraine is right now. These changes could have a catastrophic impact on the situation of small internet providers. We are against these changes. I propose to leave the cost for IXP at EUR 75. -- ТзОВ "Інтелект Груп" м. Чернівці просп. Незалежності 106\102 +380997043200

1 0

[Service Ticket #126803] - Regarding [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
by LARUS 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

1 0

[Service Ticket #126800] - Regarding [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
by LARUS 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

1 0

[Service Ticket #126799] - Regarding [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
by LARUS 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
by dolko＠nexet.pl 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Szanowni Państwo, do dnia 18.03 przebywam na urlopie wypoczynkowym poza granicami kraju. W tym czasie nie posiadam dostępu do komputera, a kontakt telefoniczny może być utrudniony. Informuję również, że poczta nie jest w tym okresie przekierowywana. Na wiadomości odpowiem po powrocie. Z poważaniem, Damian Olko

1 0

Vendor Request
by Chevron Procurement 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

1 0

Your files are scheduled for removal | ID:150549-38552
by CLOUD ALERT 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

1 0

[Service Ticket #126685] - Regarding [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback
by LARUS 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback
by dolko＠nexet.pl 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Szanowni Państwo, do dnia 18.03 przebywam na urlopie wypoczynkowym poza granicami kraju. W tym czasie nie posiadam dostępu do komputera, a kontakt telefoniczny może być utrudniony. Informuję również, że poczta nie jest w tym okresie przekierowywana. Na wiadomości odpowiem po powrocie. Z poważaniem, Damian Olko

1 0

A note on the new payment scheme.
by Iwao Internet 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

As representatives of small ISPs (with 1000 - 3000 customers), we perceive the current state of affairs as extremely disadvantageous and discriminatory compared to large national operators. It is not possible for us that an operator with billion-dollar turnover should pay a similar fee as a small local ISP. We clearly support a selection that will increase the membership price in any way. For example, by the number of IP address ranges. We also think that this could result in the return of a lot of public IP addresses that are lying idle at those large operators. Thank you CUBESOL, s.r.o.

1 0

Funding Opportunity for Your Projects
by Nasser Al Maskati 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback
by Akayo 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Hi Randy! I am a small hoster with an < IPv4 /19 equivalent ("Between /19 and /20")—less than 8K IPs for all my new and old customers for almost forever, since it is hard to get new IPv4 space. Yes—for a newcomer that sounds much; but that doesn't make me suddenly a medium-sized or even large LIR. Model A: I would pay €2,593.00 per year only for these subnets. Would I have not 8K IPs, but 65K IPs (8-times so much) I would only pay €4,681.00. For 1 Million IPs (128-times so much) I would only pay €7,137.00. Model B: I would pay €2,895.00 per year only for these subnets. For 65K IPs (8-times so much) I would only pay €4,454.00. For 1 Million IPs (128-times so much) I would only pay €6,715.00. Conclusion: This will have disastrous financial consequences for us, especially since these increases will not stop. This will result in more and more LIRs having to sell their networks to the large LIRs for cost reasons. And you can't even blame the large LIRs for this. --Kayo ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Sent: Monday, 9. Mar 2026 – 17:46 CET +0100 To: Akayo <ripe(a)akayo.eu> CC: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback > the new models will lead to fees of €3,000 per year even for small > LIRs. i played witht he calculator spreadsheet a bit, and that is not what i saw. could you please send an example? thanks. randy

2 1

A note on the new payment scheme.
by Iwao Internet 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

A note on the new payment scheme. As representatives of small ISPs (with 1000 - 3000 customers), we perceive the current state of affairs as extremely disadvantageous and discriminatory compared to large national operators. It is not possible for us that an operator with billion-dollar turnover should pay a similar fee as a small local ISP. We clearly support a selection that will increase the membership price in any way. For example, by the number of IP address ranges. We also think that this could result in the return of a lot of public IP addresses that are lying idle at those large operators. Thank you CUBESOL, s.r.o. --

1 0

Re: Τιμολόγιο πληρωμή 2026-9382
by Vangelis Karampos.ripe.net 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

1 0

Custom Sticker/Label Printing Solutions for Your Business
by admin＠hongchengco.com 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Hi friend, If you're comparing printing quotations, our transparent pricing might interest you. It will be much cheaper than your local suppliers. How we achieve this: --Direct factory pricing (no middlemen) --Bulk material sourcing advantages --Optimized production workflows Quality assurance: --Physical proof before production --3 rounds of QC inspections --100% satisfaction guarantee Request your customized quote by replying with specifications. Thank you Sincerely, Ana H&C Printing Email: admin(a)hongchengco.com

1 0

Amazоn配送のご案内
by アマゾンお届け情報 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

1 0

Re: multiple SMTP rotate for bulk mailing/fresh email list
by unlimited SMTP/inbox mailer 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

1 0

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback
by Akayo 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, the new models will lead to fees of €3,000 per year even for small LIRs. Not only is this not fair and contrary to the official goals, but the result will be that small and medium-sized LIRs are forced to sell their space long-term. The demand for IPv4 is way lower than it was 10 years ago and the bankruptcy rate is high. So long-term we will see less and less small/medium-sized LIRs with IPv4. It will be too expensive for them and so more and more space moves to larger LIRs. --Kayo

3 2

Your account password expires today please comfirm to continue!
by RIPE NCC 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

1 0

Funding Opportunity for Your Projects
by Nasser Al Maskati 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

1 0