- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

NCC Charging scheme
by Akayo 16 Mar '26

16 Mar '26

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(a)basen.net> Sent: Wednesday, 11. Mar 2026 – 17:27 CET +0100 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de> 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Michal Krajčírovič <michal(a)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(a)ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 17:23 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de>; 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)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(a)iks-service.de> Komu "'members-discuss(a)ripe.net'" <members-discuss(a)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(a)noris.de> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2026 11:12 An: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme > On 11. Mar 2026, at 00:36, sdy(a)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(a)noris.de Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689

4 3

FW: [ripe-list] Discussion about Charging Scheme to RIPE NCC Members List
by Tiberiu Gîndu 16 Mar '26

16 Mar '26

Dear members, Please see attached a positioning document issued by us (ANISP / RoNIX) related to the charging scheme and other conversations that were exchanged on the RIPE community list (example attached). Best regards, Tiberiu Gîndu ANISP / RoNIX -----Original Message----- From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)zu-hause.nl> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 2:27 PM To: RIPE List <ripe-list(a)ripe.net> Subject: [ripe-list] Discussion about Charging Scheme to RIPE NCC Members List Dear colleagues, Please note that conversations related to the RIPE NCC budget and charging scheme should take place on the RIPE NCC members list and not on the RIPE community list: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/ripe-ncc-mailing-lists/members-discuss/ Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne (RIPE Chair and List Moderator) ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.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

Re: NCC Charging scheme
by Evgeniy Brodskiy 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Загальнодоступна інформація/Public information. Hi Michal, You mentioned that 'IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans.' This is an interesting point of view, though I won't even start on how much speculation is in those words. Accusing people without evidence simply because you can doesn't seem like a solid foundation. But if we follow your logic, why stop halfway? If these resources were truly 'misallocated,' why should they return to RIPE at all? Why not return them directly to IANA for global redistribution? After all, why shouldn't a small LIR from the AFRINIC region have the same right to this 'inefficiently allocated' space as a small LIR from RIPE? The reality we must acknowledge is that RIPE NCC only obtained and managed such a vast amount of IPv4 space because LIRs proactively requested it in the past. It was the demand from these members that built the registry's current scale and justified its existence. And you should be very careful with calls to 'seize and divide.' We have already seen the legal and operational chaos that occurs when a RIR (like AFRINIC) attempts to pivot from a service organization to a punitive body. It doesn't result in more addresses; it results in instability for everyone (AFRINIC vs. Cloud Innovation case). Best regards. P.S. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/afrinic-vs-cloud-innovation-why-legal-battle… From: Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 5:23 PM To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke(a)iks-service.de<mailto:L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>>; 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto: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(a)iks-service.de<mailto:L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>> Komu "'members-discuss(a)ripe.net'" <members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto: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(a)noris.de<mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2026 11:12 An: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme > On 11. Mar 2026, at 00:36, sdy(a)a-n-t.ru<mailto: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%. [cid:image001.png@01DCB258.D14505A0] (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 -- [PDF Creator] Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger(a)noris.de<mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689

1 0

Concerns Regarding Proposed Increase of Fees for IPv4 PI Resources
by Oleksandr Tsaran 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, I would like to express my concern regarding the proposal to increase the annual fees for Provider Independent (PI) resources, particularly IPv4 PI assignments, from the current EUR75 per block to EUR1,000 per block. PI address space serves a critical operational role, enabling routing independence, multi-homing, and rapid reconfiguration of upstream connectivity without renumbering infrastructure. For many operators, PI resources are essential for maintaining stable and resilient networks. For operators in Ukraine, this is especially important. Networks continue to operate under extraordinary circumstances, including infrastructure damage, power outages, and ongoing disruptions. PI resources allow these networks to maintain connectivity and quickly restore service during such events. Given that the administrative costs of maintaining all LIR resources are largely covered by the annual LIR membership fee, the proposed increase in the PI block fee represents a very steep and disproportionate rise compared to the current PI fee. It could place a significant financial burden on smaller operators, whose primary focus is on infrastructure stability rather than commercial expansion. I believe many operators in the RIPE region share similar concerns, particularly smaller networks and those operating in challenging economic or operational environments. I would also like to highlight that many Internet Exchange Points rely on PI address space and operate on a non-commercial basis. A sharp increase in PI fees could make some IXPs financially unviable, potentially leading to their closure and negatively impacting overall network stability. For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the RIPE community not to support proposals that increase fees for IPv4 PI resources. -- Kind regards, Oleksandr Tsaran NET-CITY 2020 LLC RIPE NCC Member

1 0

NCC Charging scheme
by thiele＠holomua.de 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

Hello everyone, unfortunately, the discussion here in Phase 2 reflects the experiences and contributions from Phase 1 and shows that we are all engaged in a sham discussion here. RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed. As many members clearly pointed out in Phase 1, this inevitably leads to unfair pricing and thus unfair cost distribution. According to the class-based Charging scheme models presented, users with small IP resources would have to pay up to 100 times more per IP address per year than users with large IP resources. I personally consider the argument that the latter users would otherwise pay too much and might switch RIRs to be highly questionable, as the associated effort/costs and also the question of whether other RIRs could even provide replacements for these resources suggest that these users would not switch. The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters. It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach. In my opinion, at least, a fair pricing model can never be achieved with the models currently being presented. Kind regards Peter Thiele -- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avast.com

13 18

The new proposal regarding the payment scheme is disgraceful and shows signs of collusion among big businesses.
by FAP_IMC 12 Mar '26

12 Mar '26

My sincere congratulations, Members-discuss. Protection of Small Telecom Businesses in Ukraine Today, the Ukrainian internet services market operates under the conditions of resisting Russian aggression, missile attacks, and constant cyber threats. In these circumstances, thousands of local operators continue to ensure stable connectivity for citizens, businesses, and the state. Proposals to change the payment model for numbering resources (including PI addresses) have raised serious concerns among market operators. Ukraine has around 4,000 registered internet providers, and this decentralized structure is one of the key reasons for the resilience of the Ukrainian internet. Local operators often provide connectivity in small towns and communities where large companies do not operate. Most providers are small and medium-sized businesses that have invested for many years in their own infrastructure and network development. For them, Provider Independent (PI) addresses are the foundation of technical independence. Sudden changes in financial conditions may threaten the stability of their operations. In the context of a full-scale war, a decentralized internet structure is an important element of national resilience. A large number of independent operators allows for faster restoration of connectivity after attacks and supports the operation of critical infrastructure. Any financial or regulatory changes that weaken small providers create a risk of market concentration in the hands of a few large companies and may reduce the overall resilience of the telecommunications infrastructure. Under the current wartime conditions, any changes to the payment model for numbering resources are premature and unacceptable. We call for maintaining stability in the existing rules and for open dialogue with the industry in order to find solutions that will support Ukrainian providers and preserve the resilience of the national internet infrastructure. Respectfully Oleksandr Fedienko

2 1

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