Hello everyone, I would like again say my opinion on the Charging Scheme issue. And I hope be heard by both a responsible active group and an active part of the community. When we discussing the Charging Scheme, we should not focus on the issues of its size or on "compensation" for the lack of resources for newcomers. We should focus on solving the real problems of the RIPE NCC community. We need now to solve the problem of executing the main RIPE and NCC function! The community was created and we joined as its members to organize an open and stable inter-network interaction. But now, we have the systematic problem of lack of IPv4 and AS 32 resources. This creates unequal market conditions for new and old players. This discrediting RIPE NCC as a community of equals. We really need to do something about this! Why is so bad? Let's look at the current picture in the submitted document: https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Draft_Report_of_the_RIPE_NCC_Charging_S... Appendix 1: Distribution of IPv4/IPv6/ASNs/IPv4 PI/IPv6 PI among members Table: IPv4 /24 Independent Resources Held per LIR Account On page 17. What do we see? Most of the LIR (95% or 20,058 out of 21248 members) these are holders of a small number of addresses (categories A-J). They have less than 10% IPv4 at their disposal. And there are 1190 members (5%) who manage 90% of the address space. Among them are large telecom holding companies. There are no more available IPv4 addresses. Admittedly, we have seen monopolized the market for IPv4 address services. Why? These companies (as being major players) are the least interested in changing the situation, including switching to IPv6. On RIPE's errors approach to address allocation, they have become owners of a large unical resource. Keeping this resource on their balance sheet costs them nothing. But with the current "market" price of 1 IPv4 at $ 50, it significantly increases their own market value. And MORE! It prevents new large concurrent from entering the market. What to do? One of the few solutions to this problem is to create conditions where retaining a large number of scarce resources will become economically unprofitable! The solution to this problem is to charge for such a resource! And this fee should be substantial for large holders. I am categorically against any Charging Scheme "with categories". Why? Because as you see we have problems with a LARGE size holders! 1. If it will be Scheme where the cost depends nonlinearly on the number of addresses. Then the sale one network /24 covers the cost of a fee for several years. Big holders will never have an interest in releasing resources. 2. If it will be Scheme "with categories" where the cost depends linearly on the number of addresses (even on the upper bound) it will also be ineffective. Holders have no interest in freeing up resources, because to change their payment, HUGE numbers of addresses must be returned simultaneously. It is unreal. So, what to do? The most optimal scenario in my opinion is the following: 1. The annual payment must consist of 2 parts: - The FIXED part - The VARIABLE part is directly dependent on the number of allocated SCARCE resources (now IPv4 and AS32) The amount of payments in this way should not affect the number of LIR votes. 2. In the first years, we have to plan payments and budget so that: - The FIXED part was about 1/4-1/2 of the planned budget - The VARIABLE part covered the rest of the planned budget with a surplus of at least 20%. 3. We must increase the payment for the VARIABLE part annually until at least 15% of the resources become available for distribution. At the same time, the community should allocate the funds received in excess of the planned budget for the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or other new protocols. This can be the preparation of educational programs, the translation of articles into local languages, the completion and popularization of improvements to the IP stack or of training programs, the development of software to simplify migration and other initiatives. --- In hope for your attention. Dmitry Serbulov
Hello everyone,
As mentioned during the presentation at the GM last week, the Charging Scheme Task Force is interested in your comments and suggestions on our draft report, until the end of May 2025.
Here's a link to the draft report, for your perusal. https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Draft_Report_of_the_RIPE_NCC_Charging_S...
We welcome comments either on the members-discuss list here or you can email them directly to us at: charging-scheme-task-force2024@ripe.net. While we do not want to discourage any discussion, the Task Force is unable to consider comments made elsewhere.
Best Regards, Peter Hessler Co-Chair Charging Scheme Task Force ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.