July 2012 - members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] Reverse DNS issue - zone still not working fromripe DNS server
by None 10 May '14

10 May '14

36 44

Charging scheme discussion
by Nigel Titley 10 Aug '12

10 Aug '12

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board is very happy to note the detailed level of discussion the membership has engaged in regarding the proposed RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model. We are very grateful for the feedback we have received, both positive and negative. We have followed the discussions closely and will continue to do so until we have our Executive Board meeting on 2 August to formulate the Draft Charging Scheme 2013, which will be presented for members to vote on at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 26 September 2012. The proposed model is available at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/charging-scheme-mode… Some of the issues that have arisen during the discussion on the list are: - Concerns over the self-determination aspect of the model, such as the belief that large LIRs will declare as Small LIRs - Proposals to charge members based on resource usage - Comments that the proposed model favours large LIRs - Proposals to divide costs equally among all members - The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources - Changing RIPE NCC status from non-taxable to taxable to have more flexibility in the fee schedule Many of the issues that have risen in the discussions are also included in the Report of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Task Force, and we would advise you to read this document. It is available as a PDF at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/april-2012/supporting-documents/re… Regarding the issue of changing the RIPE NCC model so that it becomes subject to corporate income taxation, it is unclear how exactly this would impact RIPE NCC finances. However, it could be expensive because the RIPE NCC reserves could come under scrutiny. The Executive Board will continue to monitor the discussions on the mailing list, and we thank you for the valuable input you have given us so far. Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman of the RIPE NCC Executive Board

23 53

Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Nigel Titley 05 Aug '12

05 Aug '12

Dear Colleagues, In recent years, there has been much discussion about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes this feedback and has followed the discussion on the members-discuss mailing list and at RIPE NCC General Meetings. A Charging Scheme Task Force was established with representatives from different membership categories, as well as members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, in order to provide recommendations for updating the Charging Scheme model. In response to the feedback from members and the Charging Scheme Task Force, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has developed a proposal for a new Charging Scheme model. In very broad terms, this model creates a simplified fee structure where the majority of members pay the same fee. The income derived from these membership fees covers the majority of the RIPE NCC’s operational costs. The proposal is available at: www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/ We have produced this proposal in answer to members’ discussion of the current Charging Scheme model and by following, as closely as possible, the recommendations of the Charging Scheme Task Force. The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback. The Executive Board will be meeting again in early August 2012 to finalise the proposal that will be presented for a formal vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2012. We urge you to send us any comments or concerns you have about the proposed model by the end of July. Please send your feedback on this proposal to the members-discuss mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net). As ever, if you have any questions or concerns, you can also contact the RIPE NCC Executive Board directly at: exec-board(a)ripe.net Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

31 59

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA.
by Adam Waite 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Rob Golding <rob.golding(a)othellotech.net> wrote: >> If you consume water, you don't pay support ticket, >> you pay liters of water. > > Depends on where you live - that's not the case in all locations or all countries - in the UK most people pay a flat *minimal* fee for their water (mine is £114/year) no matter how much you "consume" > That is because the big consumers of water in the UK have succeeded in externalizing their costs onto smaller consumers. And that's exactly what this discussion thread has been about -- trying to force larger consumers of a finite resource to pay in proportion to their consumption.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA.
by Sascha Luck 31 Jul '12

31 Jul '12

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 09:12:35PM +0100, Rob Golding wrote: >The post office don???t charge for a postcode (necessary to deliver >your mail in most countries) and the is a finite number of those - they >make their money to pay for the database management of postcode through >other services which are *optional*. I'm not sure I'd want the NCC to sell my address to spamm^Wmarketers, even if that means that membership be free... ;) sncr, Sascha

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA.
by LeaderTelecom Ltd. 30 Jul '12

30 Jul '12

Dear Erik, With all do respect for your effort, but this is not making anything easier than the current charging scheme AND it is still assigned resource based. If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE’s) of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE NCC, like any other support contract you have. Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for free. What is main value which RIPE? Assign IPs? Or provide Support? Of course both are very important. But Support - it is a way how to get resource. Regards IPv6 we can charge LIR, for example, 750 EUR for each additional IPv6 network /32. So in this way we don't need support for assigning IP addresses. What do you think? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 27 Jul '12

27 Jul '12

then just threatten them to get another vendor for -everything- ... quite sure they'll go for the 'ok here you have the 1M licence for free as long as you keep buying 10M/yr in equipment for us' option. also as for CPE, most of that stuff can easily run linux... developers in india could be cheaper than 9889483989 new adsl modems. (so just get your OWN firmware in that case) On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Mark Jones (MK) wrote: > As mentioned before, some vendors still want paying in the order of $£1M for a licence in order to enable the use of IPV6 on their systems/software which can delay the uptake of IPV6. So it's not just a matter of hardware upgrades. > > M. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis > Sent: 27 July 2012 12:11 > To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. > Cc: Erik Bais; members-discuss(a)ripe.net; Nigel Titley > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region > > you go to your CFO -now- and tell them you need new equipment -now- ?!?!?!?! > > HELLO IPv6 support has been around since the late 1990s. > > if you didn't get new equipment since then , how are you still in business and not being totally rooted every other day? > > basically you're saying all your stuff is 16 years old. > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > >> Dear Erik, >> >>> I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 >>> and a >> whole block of 16 bit ASN >>> pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, >>> their >> answer was : >> > <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 >> years already. Everyone should do >>> the same ...</end quote> >>> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. >> >> Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably >> ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you >> need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional >> investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and >> IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run >> IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current >> cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It >> time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in >> word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6. >> >> > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and >> out-dated by the time it comes >>> into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the >>> resource >> pool is already in the final /8. >>> And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... >> > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction >> where things should go for the >>> above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a >>> resource >> that is gone ... To have >>> this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ... >> >> But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. >> And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new >> LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support >> IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? >> >> -- >> Alexey Ivanov >> LeaderTelecom Ltd. >> > ############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb(a)talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ##############################################################################

1 1

Re: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam
by Brandon Butterworth 26 Jul '12

26 Jul '12

> To follow up the discussion started at the Ljubjana meeting about Legacy > Resources registration in the RIPE DB, we (LR Holders) are asking forac an > agenda slot (15-20 mn would be sufficient) to have a formal discussion > on this topic based on a policy proposal we're working on. What's the proposal? We have legacy and are happy with it just as it is. Actually I don't see why anyone needs to fiddle with v4 stuff (c.f. the pricing discussion). v4 is done, people should spend their time on v6, do somehting useful brandon

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
by Max Tulyev 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

24.07.12 22:38, Rob Golding написав(ла): > If we're going to "accelerate"the acceptance of IPv6 (which is in all of our > interests) then anyone using PI IPv4 _probably_ needs some PI IPv6 Absolutely sure. The majority of our IPv4 PI customers at least asked us for IPv6 PI. But almost none of them qualify to get it. Others don't want to pay for something can't do the money income. So if RIPE/RIPE NCC really want to push IPv6 - let's do two easy things: change the qualify details for IPv6 PI and provide it free of charge for several years.

6 7

Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
by Nick Hilliard 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

On 24/07/2012 20:38, Rob Golding wrote: > If we're going to "accelerate"the acceptance of IPv6 (which is in all of our > interests) then anyone using PI IPv4 _probably_ needs some PI IPv6 > > If you're going to charge then for both you put an artificial barrier > (doubling their cost), and they'll never want the v6 ... Have you considered that one hour of engineering time would probably cost a company ~€150 - €300, including overheads? So your argument is that a cost equivalent to 10 minutes of engineering time for a company is too much for the company to bear if they want a provider independent v6 presence on the Internet. I'd respectfully suggest that if an organisation views €50 / annum as a serious barrier to adoption of a technology which is important to their business success, then that organisation has severe priority inversion problems. >> There should be a differentiation in charge depending on assignment size, >> e.g. a /18 is charged more than a /24. > > Why ? > > What more work is there for RIPE to do ? e.g. requests outside an assignment window. Can I suggest you read the RIPE Annual Report for 2011? It gives a breakdown of the annual expenditure for the company, including the registration services costs. >> There is no need to charge for ASNs. > > 16bit ASNs are equally in short supply, and the majority of deployed routers > don't understand longer ASNs Intermediate routers don't need to understand ASN32 because that's handled by clever translation stuff. Edge routers which use an ASN32 as the local asn do need to understand ASN32 natively, but this support has been available on all cisco ios based platforms since 2009 and all juniper platforms since 2008. If you're running software this old on your transit routers, you have bigger problems. Nick

5 6