In my opinion it would not be wise to aggressively audit members. We have 2026 and not 2009. It would cost much money and would lead to cost-intensive lawsuits: Millions of USD for a questionable cause. We should keep things simple: If a LIR with 128-times more IPv4 space only pays 2.7-times (= Model A) or 2.3 times (= Model B) so much we already have found the problem. --Kayo ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Sent: Wednesday, 11. Mar 2026 – 17:27 CET +0100 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> 'members-discuss@ripe.net' <members-discuss@ripe.net> Michal Krajčírovič <michal@krajcirovic.cz> CC: Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme You can't turn back time. Realistically, I mean. All this silly talk, no offense, of looting and industrial scale falsifying, etc - please. You don't need to be on a waiting list. I get 10+ emails weekly from various brokers offering, unsolicited, blocks of addresses. I can forward some of them to you if you want. The same offer is available to anyone else, too. Kaj ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 17:23 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>; 'members-discuss@ripe.net' <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme Hello, I apologize to everyone; what we are discussing here seems absurd to me. Undoubtedly it is the fault of us, the small LIRs, that we do not participate in the voting where the question of how much we should pay is decided. However, the main issue is not being addressed — that IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans, and those who obtained them in this way now pay the same as small LIRs, who must purchase IP addresses at high prices. And what does RIPE propose? That they should also pay for a place on the waiting list. I have a different proposal: immediately stop all inter-RIR transfers initiate a complete audit of IP usage in accordance with addressing plans after the audit, return all IPs used in violation of addressing plans (which includes at least all those being sold at various auctions) to the free pool Where are the days when Arne Kiessling was almost shutting down LIRs? When every minor issue and every suspicion of non-compliance was examined? I personally experienced such an audit at one of my former employers. Today nobody cares, and some “CEO of I-don’t-know-what” writes here that he trusts the members. Sure. We have allowed our own registry to be looted. And now small LIRs are supposed to pay the same as large ones. I call on all small LIRs: let us take RIPE back into our own hands, push for votes not only on payment issues but also on a complete audit, and make it the first registry that will have IP addresses again — because it will reclaim them from those who falsified addressing plans in the past on an industrial scale and are now making millions from it. Michal ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Lutz Donnerhacke" <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> Komu "'members-discuss@ripe.net'" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Datum 11.03.2026 14:10:47 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme +1 for Sebastian Wiesinger and Gert Döring from my side. We are a small ISP and will be hurt by a price increase for PI and AS resources, because we are doing business with them. 75€ are an irrelevant level of pricing. Even 1000€ per year is not that much compared to the other costs we have (personal, energy, licences, taxes, hardware, …). OTOH those independent resources are a burden to all of us, because they require resources at each of our routers: They increase the routing table and we have no option to filter them out (like we could do on traffic engineering at PA space). So I’ve to compare the increasing hardware costs against a „prohibitive” fee. Not an easy decision. Lutz Donnerhacke Von: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2026 11:12 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
On 11. Mar 2026, at 00:36, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
I completely disagree with you.
I've personally proposed several linear models. I've proposed various risk
scenarios for the NCC and burden on participants. All proposals are being
ignored. Linear models are simply being removed from discussions by the
administration. Why? The MAJORITY of those participating in this
discussion here have spoken about linear models! This gives me reason to
suspect a certain vested interest on the part of the group and those who
set its goals.
The majority of those participating in this discussion is not the majority of those reading or voting. There are not a lot of members that are outspoken about linear models. I’m having trouble to understand which group you mean. The RIPE NCC? The charging scheme taskforce? The members? Could you define what you have identified as the group having a vested interest in keeping linear models out of the charging scheme?
You claim IPv4 is closed. Then explain to us why the market price of one
IP address is already reaching $50? Why don't we see free resources, only
rising prices?
The prices for IPv4 are falling for a while now. Still there will be no free resources until IPv6 adoption reaches 100%. (Taken from https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales)
The schemes proposed by the working group not only create inequality among
NCC participants; they cement a system in which the majority will pay for
the very profitable business of a small number of NCC participants. This
group of participants has historically acquired vast amounts of address
space, in part by establishing an inadequate distribution model. Although
warnings about the risks of such a "helicopter distribution" of resources
have been voiced repeatedly, it seems as if the group is strictly
advocating for their interests. This is unacceptable!
No-one is paying for the profitable business of anyone. Your membership fees are not handed out to other RIPE members. You’re paying for your RIPE NCC Services. This myth of an “inadequate distribution model” comes up again and again, can you define what you mean by that? The policy before the runout was based on the demonstrated need for addresses. Everyone that could proof a need for addresses got them. That doesn’t seem inadequate to me. There are no more IPv4 addresses to distribute so I’m not sure what you mean by “helicopter distribution”. There is no cake left to hand out.
The refusal to discuss linear models has led to the failure of votes on
new models time after time. This, as I understand it, also benefits this
group of NCC members.
We voted almost 15 years ago for a flat model. This model was again and again chosen. The RIPE NCC is a membership organization, not a commercial undertaking. A strict “price per IP” model would move it towards a commercial offering which has a whole lot of implications. This was discussed again and again. I would assume that if a majority of members thinks that a more resource based approach to the fees would be good they would vote for the charging scheme model that moves towards that goal? That wasn’t the case in the past. The last time there was a category based model to vote on was for the Charging Scheme 2024 and that option didn’t win.
I believe the working group should be disbanded. Its work is pointless;
we've already voted against such payment options twice.
We voted to keep the current model. If that is what the members want that is fine.
Ultimately, it's not the administration that decides what the payment
model should be. It should be the decision of NCC members, and it should
be a fair choice with all options, including linear models.
Otherwise, all these "elections" will once again degenerate into a farce!
What elections are you talking about? If you’re unhappy, there is an Executive Board Election coming up. I don’t see you on the candidate list right now but there is still time. If you want change there is your chance to influence the future of the organization. In general I don’t like these more or less subtle hints that there is supposed to be some sort of secret group or cabal or whatever you want to name it. The truth is that there are a lot of people and most of them have different goals and motivations. Getting 100% what you want is basically impossible. It will always be a compromise. Best Regards Sebastian -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689