- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Ukrainian Internet Association letter regarding proposed PI fee increase
by V.Kukovsky 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Dear Members of the Executive Board, Dear Mr Holen, Dear RIPE Chair, Dear colleagues! Please find attached a letter from the Ukrainian Internet Association regarding the proposed increase of the annual fee for Provider Independent (PI) resources that is expected to be considered at the upcoming May 2026 General Meeting of the RIPE NCC. Given the potential impact on Ukrainian network operators and organisations relying on PI resources, we would be grateful if the Executive Board could take the considerations outlined in the letter into account. We remain available for further dialogue and would be happy to contribute to any discussions within the RIPE community on this matter. Best regards Volodymyr Kukovsky Executive Director of the Ukrainian Internet Association dir(a)inau.ua www.inau.ua <http://www.inau.ua/>

3 3

Re: Charging model discussion - keeping the system simple and transparent
by Matej 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Dear RIPE NCC and community, This is a transparent and simple charging scheme that we totally agree with. Best, Matej Serc From: bs(a)gemini.net.pl Sent: 11. marec 2026 13:05 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Charging model discussion - keeping the system simple and transparent Dear RIPE NCC and community, I would like to share a short observation regarding the ongoing discussion about the charging model. The original purpose of the RIR system, including RIPE NCC, was to maintain an orderly and transparent registry of Internet number resources. The role of the registry was primarily coordination, documentation and stewardship of address space usage for the benefit of the Internet as a whole. Today the IPv4 address pool is effectively closed. The total number of addresses is finite and well known, and the operational costs of RIPE NCC are publicly documented. Because of this, the basic parameters of the system are clear and measurable. Over time, IPv4 addresses have also acquired significant market value due to their scarcity. In some cases, the value of address holdings has become comparable to, or even larger than, the operational value of the organisations that originally received them. While this development is understandable in a scarce resource environment, it was not the primary objective of the registry system. At the same time, any change in the RIPE charging model would not significantly affect the market value of IPv4 addresses. The scarcity of IPv4 space will continue to determine its market dynamics regardless of the registry fee structure. However, a transparent and proportional charging approach could contribute to better stewardship and more efficient use of the remaining address space. It could also encourage organisations holding unused resources to reconsider their utilisation of this finite pool. From a purely mathematical perspective, the model can remain very simple and transparent. If the annual operational cost of RIPE NCC is divided by the total number of allocated IPv4 addresses in the RIPE region, we obtain the real cost of maintaining the system per address. In principle: total RIPE NCC operational cost ÷ total allocated IPv4 addresses = annual cost per IPv4 address Such an approach would be predictable, transparent and directly proportional to the resources being maintained by the registry. In addition, a modest administrative component could be introduced to support the maintenance of other services provided by RIPE NCC, such as operational infrastructure, security initiatives and community activities. This would allow the overall structure of fees to remain realistic and balanced, while still keeping the model simple and understandable. Keeping the charging model simple and aligned with the original coordination role of the RIR system may help preserve the long-term stability and neutrality of Internet number resource management. Kind regards Bartłomiej Sztefko

1 0

Charging model discussion - keeping the system simple and transparent
by Bartlomiej Sztefko 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Dear RIPE NCC and community, I would like to share a short observation regarding the ongoing discussion about the charging model. The original purpose of the RIR system, including RIPE NCC, was to maintain an orderly and transparent registry of Internet number resources. The role of the registry was primarily coordination, documentation and stewardship of address space usage for the benefit of the Internet as a whole. Today the IPv4 address pool is effectively closed. The total number of addresses is finite and well known, and the operational costs of RIPE NCC are publicly documented. Because of this, the basic parameters of the system are clear and measurable. Over time, IPv4 addresses have also acquired significant market value due to their scarcity. In some cases, the value of address holdings has become comparable to, or even larger than, the operational value of the organisations that originally received them. While this development is understandable in a scarce resource environment, it was not the primary objective of the registry system. At the same time, any change in the RIPE charging model would not significantly affect the market value of IPv4 addresses. The scarcity of IPv4 space will continue to determine its market dynamics regardless of the registry fee structure. However, a transparent and proportional charging approach could contribute to better stewardship and more efficient use of the remaining address space. It could also encourage organisations holding unused resources to reconsider their utilisation of this finite pool. From a purely mathematical perspective, the model can remain very simple and transparent. If the annual operational cost of RIPE NCC is divided by the total number of allocated IPv4 addresses in the RIPE region, we obtain the real cost of maintaining the system per address. In principle: total RIPE NCC operational cost ÷ total allocated IPv4 addresses = annual cost per IPv4 address Such an approach would be predictable, transparent and directly proportional to the resources being maintained by the registry. In addition, a modest administrative component could be introduced to support the maintenance of other services provided by RIPE NCC, such as operational infrastructure, security initiatives and community activities. This would allow the overall structure of fees to remain realistic and balanced, while still keeping the model simple and understandable. Keeping the charging model simple and aligned with the original coordination role of the RIR system may help preserve the long-term stability and neutrality of Internet number resource management. Kind regards Bartłomiej Sztefko

1 0

NCC Charging scheme
by ТзОВ "Інтелект Груп" 11 Mar '26

11 Mar '26

Dear Members of the Working group, I hope you understand how difficult the situation in Ukraine is right now. These changes could have a catastrophic impact on the situation of small internet providers. We are against these changes. I propose to leave the cost for IXP at EUR 75. -- ТзОВ "Інтелект Груп" м. Чернівці просп. Незалежності 106\102 +380997043200

1 0

A note on the new payment scheme.
by Iwao Internet 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

As representatives of small ISPs (with 1000 - 3000 customers), we perceive the current state of affairs as extremely disadvantageous and discriminatory compared to large national operators. It is not possible for us that an operator with billion-dollar turnover should pay a similar fee as a small local ISP. We clearly support a selection that will increase the membership price in any way. For example, by the number of IP address ranges. We also think that this could result in the return of a lot of public IP addresses that are lying idle at those large operators. Thank you CUBESOL, s.r.o.

1 0

Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback
by Akayo 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Hi Randy! I am a small hoster with an < IPv4 /19 equivalent ("Between /19 and /20")—less than 8K IPs for all my new and old customers for almost forever, since it is hard to get new IPv4 space. Yes—for a newcomer that sounds much; but that doesn't make me suddenly a medium-sized or even large LIR. Model A: I would pay €2,593.00 per year only for these subnets. Would I have not 8K IPs, but 65K IPs (8-times so much) I would only pay €4,681.00. For 1 Million IPs (128-times so much) I would only pay €7,137.00. Model B: I would pay €2,895.00 per year only for these subnets. For 65K IPs (8-times so much) I would only pay €4,454.00. For 1 Million IPs (128-times so much) I would only pay €6,715.00. Conclusion: This will have disastrous financial consequences for us, especially since these increases will not stop. This will result in more and more LIRs having to sell their networks to the large LIRs for cost reasons. And you can't even blame the large LIRs for this. --Kayo ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Sent: Monday, 9. Mar 2026 – 17:46 CET +0100 To: Akayo <ripe(a)akayo.eu> CC: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback > the new models will lead to fees of €3,000 per year even for small > LIRs. i played witht he calculator spreadsheet a bit, and that is not what i saw. could you please send an example? thanks. randy

2 1

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Feedback
by Akayo 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, the new models will lead to fees of €3,000 per year even for small LIRs. Not only is this not fair and contrary to the official goals, but the result will be that small and medium-sized LIRs are forced to sell their space long-term. The demand for IPv4 is way lower than it was 10 years ago and the bankruptcy rate is high. So long-term we will see less and less small/medium-sized LIRs with IPv4. It will be too expensive for them and so more and more space moves to larger LIRs. --Kayo

3 2

Re: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Share your Feedback
by Andrejs Guba 06 Mar '26

06 Mar '26

Dear members, I would like to ask a question and make a proposal regarding LEGACY resources. The proposed one-time fee — what kinds of changes would it apply to? Would it cover any changes such as abuse contact, geolocation, description, organization data updates, IRR changes, etc.? If different parameters need to be changed across different network blocks, would that be considered one fee or multiple fees? If that is the case, it seems to me that this could actually worsen the situation regarding Internet security and the accuracy of data. I doubt that LEGACY resource holders who have not previously spent money on maintaining their resources will be willing to go through administrative procedures and pay fees, for example just to update an abuse contact. In addition, the working group noted that there may be difficulties with the process of collecting payments from parties that are not contractually bound members. RIPE is a non-profit organization; it should not promote situations where someone is required to pay it more money, but should primarily focus on the security and integrity of the Internet. Without important clarifications, the proposed changes may, in my opinion, produce the opposite effect. I propose taking the ARIN approach as a basis: allow any changes to LEGACY objects without entering into a contractual relationship, except for IRR changes. This approach seems logical. In most cases, an IRR change itself represents a technical infrastructure change that usually involves financial costs (for example, changing a provider), and introducing a RIPE fee at that stage for administrative purposes could be justified. Andrejs Guba LVNET.LV On 2026-03-05 14:16, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear members, > There is still time to provide any input you might have before we > publish the final charging scheme options to be voted on by the > membership in May. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will decide on the > draft charging scheme options for members to vote on at their meeting > on 26 March and will review all feedback received from the membership. > > These options could lead to significant changes to the fees you will > pay. While many members may see a fee decrease, others could see > substantial increases. > Please review the consultation pages and provide input on the > members-discuss mailing list: > > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cs-… > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha… > [2] > In April, following the Executive Board meeting, we will publish the > draft charging scheme proposals for your review. > And please remember to register to vote at the GM: > > https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active [3] > Kind regards, > > Simon-Jan Haytink > > Chief Financial Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cs-… > [2] > https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha… > [3] https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription > options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-announce.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/

1 0

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Share your Feedback
by Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH 05 Mar '26

05 Mar '26

Hello Simon, I’m sorry to say that I didn’t have the time to read all the feedback that was already on this list, or the background information you published. Still, I’d like to give quick feedback to the proposed fees. I’m limiting myself to those positions I have an opinion on. New Member Sign-up Fee: EUR 1,000 * Sure, signups cause work and the costs need to be paid somehow. LIR Account Sign-up Fee (additional LIR account): EUR 1,500 IPv4 Waiting List Sign-up Fee: EUR 2,000 IPv4 Allocation Fee (from waiting list): EUR 750 * Wait, what? This is basically selling IPv4 space for 4250 € (split into three payments). I thought we aren’t in the business of selling resources. * The additional LIRs were a fiction that is no longer relevant if we move to a member-based charging model. Get rid of that in favor of other methods. * Why exactly does signup of a LIR for an existing member make more work and as such require a higher signup fee than member signup, anyway? * Instead, I would prefer to just allow a member to book one or more places on a “waiting list” service, which has a fixed yearly fee. Maybe increase the fee per place the more places a member books. When the member receives an IPv4 block, their place on the waiting list gets re-added to the bottom of the list. That way it’s not a selling of IP space, it’s a service provided. Additional ASN Fee: EUR 50 * Why is an ASN a different resource than an IP network? Merger and Acquisition Fee: EUR 500 * I think that such a fee makes sense as it produces work for RIPE NCC. 50% discount for educational institutions * Why? We’re not talking small schools here; we’re talking large universities. Those who are big enough to be members of RIPE are large corporations by themselves. * I believe some of those were “early adopters” and have larges address space. Maybe if the don’t want to pay much they could just implement NAT? * The idea why companies like Microsoft subsidize educational institutions is to push their product in front of students in the expectations that those students get used to it and then keep on using the products in their future life. I don’t expect many students to become RIPE members just because their university was one. * To be clear, I don’t have numbers backing that up or anything, these are just my assumptions. Discount for members in lower income countries * I like the idea on principle, but I worry about finding a way to implement that fairly that doesn’t trigger years of complaining by everyone. I believe this should not be part of the original charging scheme vote and if members want to implement it, make it a separate vote after the charging scheme is implemented. Just my two cents. Best regards, Andreas Von: Simon-Jan Haytink <simonjh(a)ripe.net> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2026 13:17 An: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Betreff: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme - Share your Feedback Dear members, There is still time to provide any input you might have before we publish the final charging scheme options to be voted on by the membership in May. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will decide on the draft charging scheme options for members to vote on at their meeting on 26 March and will review all feedback received from the membership. These options could lead to significant changes to the fees you will pay. While many members may see a fee decrease, others could see substantial increases. Please review the consultation pages and provide input on the members-discuss mailing list: <https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cs-…> https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cs-… <https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha…> https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha… In April, following the Executive Board meeting, we will publish the draft charging scheme proposals for your review. And please remember to register to vote at the GM: <https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active> https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active Kind regards, Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Objection to Group 2 Proposals – Impact on Small Internet Providers in Ukraine
by Олена Кушнір 26 Feb '26

26 Feb '26

Dear Members of the Working Group, I would like to express my strong objection to the proposals listed under *Group 2: Possible Additional Fees, Discounts and Incentives*, especially the proposal to increase the "PI assignment fee to EUR 1,000". There are approximately 4,000 Internet providers in Ukraine, most of which are sponsored by around 300 LIRs. These small providers form the backbone of the country’s Internet connectivity. If the PI assignment fee is increased from EUR 75 to EUR 1,000, these costs will inevitably be passed on to small providers. For many of them, especially under wartime conditions, such a fee would be unaffordable. Ukraine is currently in the midst of a full-scale war. Many small ISPs: * repair damaged networks, * operate during power outages, * invest in generators and batteries, * support schools, hospitals, and local authorities, * work with very limited financial margins. An additional fee from EUR 1,000 would represent a serious financial shock and could force many small ISPs to cease operations. Connectivity in Ukraine depends primarily on small local ISPs rather than large national operators. Weakening them means weakening the resilience of Ukraine's entire network and society. I would also like to remind the Working Group that Ukraine is ranked among the "Top-10 countries worldwide in terms of network resilience", precisely because of its highly diversified ISP market. This decentralised structure has proven to be a key factor in maintaining connectivity during wartime. Any measure that financially pressures small providers risks undermining this resilience model. For these reasons, I believe that this proposal will seriously harm the market for small Internet providers in Ukraine and should not be put to a vote at all in its current situation. Thank you for considering this feedback. Best regards, Olena Kushnir

1 0