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

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