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

Re: [members-discuss] Reverse DNS issue - zone still not working fromripe DNS server
by None 09 May '14

09 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] 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

Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
by Mark Jones (MK) 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

It's also not helped by some vendors cranking up expensive licence fees for companies to be able to use IPV6 on their products.. Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: 25 July 2012 04:05 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion >> 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? Regarding IPv6 ... End users don’t know what it is, don’t appear to want it, from take up certainly don’t seem to need it, and basically don’t care about it - they just want their pr0n to turn up quickly. > 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. No, I'm saying they don’t want ipv6 at all as they see no requirement for it, then you add making them pay for it in addition to their ipv4 will get you the response (from experience) "no thanks, no-one uses that" >> 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. If my window is a /16 then the /18 is less work, than when your window is /26 and you request a /24 :p > Can I suggest you read the RIPE Annual Report for 2011? Been there, done that, have my own opinions on the expenditure ... > 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. You missed the point where I explained that we did all this 10 years ago ! 89% of the worlds desktops are running an OS which does things wrong with IPv6 DNS results when it gets a v6 result from DNS lookups and doesn’t have any v6 routes, so putting a site/service/system on ipv6 only cuts your potential audience by 9/10ths Deliberately putting people off of IPv6 by telling them they'll need expensive tech time (as you say) plus more contributions to ripe fees is not going to help takeup - my experience, YMMV Rob ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ############################################################################## 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 0

Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
by Andrea Cocito 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

Hi, On Jul 24, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Rob Golding wrote: > "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back to them being a "commodity" > (altering the tax status) This is wrong and leads to misinformation. Until last year RIPE membership had a cost depending on a class model (large, small, extra large, etc), which on its behalf depended on the number of allocated resources. Until last year (and now, so far) RIPE was classified as non-profit. These are facts. So it IS POSSIBLE to have a membership fee that depends on the number of allocated resources without changing the non-profit status, and an example has been provided. Everybody understands that RIPE cannot "sell" address space, everybody understands that RIPE can have different classes of membership which different fees, where the class of membership depends on the number of allocated resources and the fee is effectively proportional to that, all this maintaining a non-profit status. Continuing to confuse these two issues, which have nothing to do each with the other, sounds like plain misinformation: The "Tax issue" is not an issue, unless further information showing the opposite is presented. Regards, A.

4 4

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

25 Jul '12

On 25/07/2012 04:05, Rob Golding wrote: > End users don’t know what it is, don’t appear to want it, from take up > certainly don’t seem to need it, and basically don’t care about it - > they just want their pr0n to turn up quickly. Certainly desktop users are most interested in just doing whatever they want to do and don't care too much about the underlying protocols. But I'm getting the impression that you're mixing up what an End User means here. If you're the sort of end-user who requires provider independent addressing, you're probably a small-medium sized content provider, or perhaps a very large large commercial customer. For customers of this form, €50 / annum is an insignificant financial outlay. If you're the sort of end user who just wants to browse stuff on your desktop, ipv6 PI is completely irrelevant to you. Your service provider can assign you some PA space and you'll probably never even notice. Look, you clearly feel very strongly that the equivalent cost of 10 minutes of engineering time is an insurmountable obstacle for the sort of organisation which is going to need IPv6 PI address space, even though an IPv6 rollout may take anything from weeks to years to implement fully, with proportional total costs of ownership. So let's agree to disagree on this point. >> 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. > > You missed the point where I explained that we did all this 10 years ago ! Nope, didn't miss it. I've no doubt that you had servers dual-stacked 10 years ago. I've even less doubt that ipv6 was nowhere near ready for large-scale deployment 10 years ago. Dual-stacking some servers is easy. Rolling v6 services out to eyeballs, not so much. > 89% of the worlds desktops are running an OS which does things wrong > with IPv6 DNS results You may be confusing ipv6 with asn32s here? I was talking about asn32s. > when it gets a v6 result from DNS lookups and doesn’t have any v6 > routes, so putting a site/service/system on ipv6 only cuts your > potential audience by 9/10ths I suspect your understanding of global ipv6 deployment problems may be substantially different to mine. Let's just agree that this isn't really relevant to members-discuss@ and go back to discussing the charging scheme. Nick

1 0

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

25 Jul '12

Il 25/07/2012 04:07, Rob Golding ha scritto: >>> "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back >>> to them being a "commodity" >>> (altering the tax status) >> This is wrong and leads to misinformation. >> Until last year RIPE membership had a cost >> depending on a class model >> (large, small, extra large, etc), which on >> its behalf depended on the >> number of allocated resources. > *number* of resources, not *size* of resources > > So thank you for confirming my point:p Actual calculation is based on number and size of resources, which the exception of age, where old users pay much less than new users. What should be eliminated is the NOT FAIR gift made to old users. Just eliminate the discount based on age and scale proportionally new prices to cover RIPE costs. Regards, Tonino

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion
by hostmaster＠freethought-internet.co.uk 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Golding" <rob.golding(a)othellotech.net> > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July, 2012 3:07:42 AM > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion > > >> "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back > >> to them being a "commodity" > >> (altering the tax status) > > This is wrong and leads to misinformation. > > Until last year RIPE membership had a cost > > depending on a class model > > (large, small, extra large, etc), which on > > its behalf depended on the > > number of allocated resources. > > *number* of resources, not *size* of resources > > So thank you for confirming my point:p > > If the charging switches to per-IP then they become "product" or > "stock" or > "items" or similar, and have a value, and that WILL change the > tax-status of > RIPE - which at current levels, will mean 25% tax which *WILL* have > to be > taken from members in fees > > So, hands up who wants a 25% price hike ? > > Rob > No, there are five different billing categories for ranges of scores and each billing category has a price associated with it. The scores are calculated from a formula which includes the time of allocation relative to 1992 and the size of the allocation from a /19 to a /22 in IPv4 or a /30 to a /33 in IPv6. The scoring units increase with the number of IP addresses in an allocation, so someone with a /20 allocated in 2012 has a score double that of someone with a /21 allocated in 2012 (40 and 20 respectively). There is a clear emphasis on the size of resources allocated. Edward Dore Freethought Internet

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model
by Jørgen Hovland 23 Jul '12

23 Jul '12

17 22

Re: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam
by Brandon Butterworth 20 Jul '12

20 Jul '12

> I got the impression that most legacy holders were happy because they got > continued registry services at no cost to themselves. Logical, I expect legacy holders believe they don't cost anything significant extra to RIPE as all RIPE have to do is hold a DB entry and not all the expensive people admin of non legacy space. We're a LIR anyway so it makes little difference, I suspect many other legacy holders may be too, we paid already. Odd that this is the first I've heard of it, I'd expect RIPE to have told us, not the legacy liberation league. > The RIPE NCC appears > to have taken the position that as registry services cost money to handle, > it would not be unfair to expect that they get some level of compensation > from legacy holders: > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space Oi, RIPE, nooo. You can't faff around with stuff that was fine as it is and then claim people need to pay you because the faffing costs money. And my main point stands, why is effort being wasted on v4, get over it, the legacy people will need to get v6, you can charge them then brandon

2 1

Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam
by Bernard Ph D. TUY 19 Jul '12

19 Jul '12

====BT: Hi Nigel, 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. Do you think this possible ? Thanx for your acknowledgement. All the best, Bernard T.

5 7

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model
by Alexandr Saroyan 18 Jul '12

18 Jul '12

Hi, Rob, I have used free 2 free tickets when I attended RIPE meeting the first time. Years ago I have been on LIR trainings many times both in Amsterdam in RIPE NCC office and in Armenia. Each time during those trainings there were a lot of people(up to 30) from different companies. Additionally on each RIPE meeting I meet people who are first time and they use the Free Tickets. So people really use them - I conclude that 2 free tickets and free LIR trainings are essential for new LIRs and even for old LIRs when they have new employees... Best Regards. /Alex -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:56 PM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model > Please remember that two free RIPE meeting > tickets are included in this fee. Meeting tickets or training tickets ? Either way, how many people ever use them ? Rob ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model
by Erik Bais 18 Jul '12

18 Jul '12

Hi Rob, Training is a free service for all members. It is included in the yearly fee. There are 2 RIPE meeting tickets included in the setup fee. Regards, Erik Bais

2 1

A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Lu Heng 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

Hi I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on. Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions. Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense). Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should go for ipv6 or not. And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year. And if everyone pays same: 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes. Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs. But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do. So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it. Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

10 12

Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model
by poty＠iiat.ru 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat

7 8

Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by poty 14 Jul '12

14 Jul '12

Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat

1 0

"classful" charging scheme that still charges for resources
by Andrea Cocito 14 Jul '12

14 Jul '12

Hello all, after all the discussions I cannot understand what the problem would be with a scheme like the following: a) Member LIRs are divided into 16 categories, named /5, /6, /7, .. / 20, /21 b) Your category is the smallest route that could contain the total IPv4 allocated space of your LIR c) Your fee in euro is T/2^C, where C is your category and T the total RIPENCC costs. Seems simple and fair, it is still a category based model and thus it does not change the tax status of RIPE, and in example: - Up to 2048 IP addresses you are class /21 and pay about 100 euro - Up to 4096 IP addresses you are class /20 and pay about 200 euro - Up to 8192 IP addresses you are class /19 and pay about 400 euro - Up to 16384 IP addresses you are class /18 and pay about 800 euro - Up to 32768 IP addresses you are class /17 and pay about 1600 euro - Up to 65535 IP addresses you are class /16 and pay about 3200 euro ... and so on. Some corrections improvements might be considered to take in other exhaustable resources (IPv6 address space, ASn) and even to some extent non-exhaustable ones (number of tickets per year, number of records or operations in the database). Has a schema like this ever been considered or voted upon ? Regards, A.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
by Sebastian Abt 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

Am 10.07.2012 um 15:18 schrieb "Rob Golding" <rob.golding(a)othellotech.net>: > Perhaps a better approach would be to push for the overall budget to be reduced by 10% per year _every-year_, helping the RIR focus on what it's there for, and all the extraneous items that we fund as RIPE members can start to die off ? +1 in principle. Exact percentage should be assessed empirically. regards sebastian

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
by Jamie Stallwood 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

A flat fee would disadvantage small members even more as the "regular" fee would apply. I don't want to see membership being priced out so I support the simpler banded system proposed. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Sent from my Android Secured with Good (www.good.com) Managed by Imerja -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Jacob [ripe-ncc-members-list(a)internet24.de] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 01:15 PM GMT Standard Time To: Rob Evans Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net; exec-board(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 21:45 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: > This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill > that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," > will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do). Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one. As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.

4 5

New charging model
by eifel-net GmbH 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

Hello, for us the new charging model seems to be unbalanced. Bigger LIR, as for example big telcos (Deutsche Telekom in germany for example with lots of ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 they use, compared to small onces, as there is a fee-limit of aprox. 5000 EUR yearly. For smaller companies the new model will be an increase in cost, as the border to small as /22 is not high enough, so that they will be billed as regular (thus 50% of big LIR!). Next problem is, that big LIR may pick category "small" without beeing punished. Peter ============================================== Angaben gem. § 35a GmbHG ============================================== EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Michael Bergeritz Dipl.- Kfm. Peter Thiele Bendenstr.31-33, 53879 Euskirchen Tel. 0900-524 5 524 (0,99 EUR/Min aus dem deutschen Festnetz, Preis kann für Anrufe aus den Mobilfunknetzen abweichen.) (Installationsunterstützung Einrichten Internet-Zugang) Tel. 02251-9700-36 Fax. 02251-9700-37 (nicht nutzbar für Werbezwecke) eMail: info(a)eifel-net.net (nicht nutzbar für Werbezwecke) EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH ist eingetragen im Handelregister des Amtsgericht Bonn unter Registernummer HRB11527. Die Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer lautet DE186 267 460. Wir teilen hiermit offenkundig mit, daß wir keine Zusendung von Werbung per eMail oder Fax wünschen, wenn wir dieser vorher nicht ausdrücklich schriftlich zugestimmt haben.

11 14