- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2 - comments
by Michal Krajčírovič 02 Feb '26

02 Feb '26

Dear colleagues, I would like to open a discussion in connection with the email delivered today (Charging Scheme Model Consultation: Phase 2). To be honest at the outset: I usually try to ignore matters around RIPE, pay the annual fee, and not pay much attention to it, as the whole thing strikes me as absurd. This time, however, I feel compelled to respond. I make no secret of my opinion that the current RIR model is, in 2026, obsolete. IPv4 address space has been exhausted (which is, incidentally, the fault of the RIRs themselves, who in the past often allocated IP addresses inefficiently while collecting millions for their operations), IPv6 is (according to everyone) “infinite,” and ASNs are, and most likely always will be, sufficient in number. I therefore respectfully ask whether we truly need an organization with an annual budget of EUR 40 million to serve approximately 20,000 active LIRs. *** Regarding the new scheme itself, I have several objections and uncertainties. New Member Sign-up Fee – RIPE signs identical contracts with all members, which it undoubtedly generates based on the provided information. Concluding the contract involves verifying the entity, signing the agreement, and activating the account. What on earth costs an incredible EUR 1,000 here? I assume RIPE is a non-profit organization, so this is not meant as “super business.” In my view, the trend should be the exact opposite: that “anyone” can set up their own LIR, obtain genuinely their own IPv6 addresses, under conditions that are closer to cost-based. Who on earth would want—on top of a large annual fee—to also pay EUR 1,000? Additional LIR Account Fee – this apparently assumes that there are entities that have or want multiple LIRs. Those I know solved this by setting up another company (which, incidentally, costs significantly less to establish than EUR 500). Perhaps RIPE has different data, but I believe these accounts were created solely to gain access to IPv4 while it was still available. That no longer interests anyone today. IPv4 Waiting List Sign-up Fee – sorry, but is this meant seriously? Yes, I certainly welcome the “separation” of the sign-up fee (which RIPE already has as one of the highest among all RIRs) and IPv4. Given that the plan mentions no transitional provisions, I assume that those already on the waiting list will remain there, meaning that those who pay will simply join the queue behind them. All this in a situation where we all know that the chance of actually receiving IPv4 addresses asymptotically approaches zero (or they might receive them in several years). In reality, this is a bet on speculation, because if they need the addresses, they must buy them elsewhere anyway—or is someone supposed to wait ~3 years with a project? I consider the Merger and Acquisition Fee to be unlawful. Let’s be frank about why RIPE has it: there are people who have 20 LIRs across 20 companies (through which they acquired IPv4 in the past before it ran out—congratulations), they pay 20× the annual fee, and there is concern that they might merge those companies into one. RIPE, however, ignores the basic legal principles of mergers, whose core is universal succession of the dissolving companies to the successor entity. This is the same type of succession as, for example, inheritance, where a son inherits his father’s house. It is not a “sale” or a “transfer”—the new entity steps into the relationships of the original one as if it had never ceased to exist. A procedure whereby, after such a “transfer,” resources cannot be transferred for several years, or where a fee is charged for a change in records (when that transfer occurred by operation of law under the legislation of any EU Member State—and I assume the same applies outside the EU), is contrary to the law. Moreover, as a consequence of a merger (where, for example, an entity that currently holds resources ceases to exist), no other situation can legally arise than that everything passes to the successor entity. There cannot be a “non-transfer” because someone failed to pay a fee. That simply cannot happen legally. *** In conclusion, I disagree with the discount for educational institutions. RIPE members also include various organizations close to, for example, non-profits, start-up entrepreneurs, etc., who must pay the full fees. Educational institutions are generously funded by the state, have many employees, often enormous budgets, and the fees discussed here are, compared to small companies with just a few people, entirely negligible for them. *** Unfortunately (or fortunately), I will not change RIPE (or the RIR system as a whole), nor the overall policy of how these organizations operate. I do hope, however, that my thoughts will contribute to reflection among other members. Michal Krajcirovic

1 0

Re: My thoughts about the proposed Charging Scheme Models A and B (2027–2031)
by Akayo 20 Jan '26

20 Jan '26

Hi Ben! Of course I do agree that "whale customers" are not a good idea as well since this would put the independency of the RIPE NCC on risk. However, even if we would use a way more balanced category based model, we are still miles away from such a risk because I was not speaking about millions or even hundreds of thousands of fees for the largest LIRs. But it simply doesn't make much sense if the largest LIRs pay a few thousand EUR per year while even small LIRs pay a few thousand EUR per year as well. --Kayo

3 2

My thoughts about the proposed Charging Scheme Models A and B (2027–2031)
by Akayo 19 Jan '26

19 Jan '26

Dear colleagues, though I'm a few weeks too late I want to wish you a Happy New Year! As far as I understand there are currently two proposed models for the RIPE NCC charging scheme for the period 2027–2031. Model A is category based where Model B is formula based. Here are my thoughts: 1. I do not support Model B for the simple reason that I think a formula based model is too complicated and therefore intransparent. Members should be able to immediately see (on paper, not being required to use a calculator) how many fees they are required to pay. 2. I support keeping the flat fee model (only) in case the fees are not increased. If the flat fee is increased all few years due to higher costs, I do not support it any more because it will be a financial burden for smaller LIRs. For instance, I think it would be a imposition for smaller LIRs to pay €3,000 per year one day. The hosting business is not getting easier—it's getting harder. 3. If a category based scheme is used, I think many categories are better than less categories. The current Model A has 21 categories (counting the €500 category in case the LIR has no resources at all) which is good. However, I think Model A is extremely unfair: 4. First, from what I can see, the largest single allocation is IPv4 /10 and there is not a single IPv4 /8 or even /9 allocation. So it is doubtful that even the largest LIRs will fall into the uppermost categories. That means there are categories which from the beginning on will never be relevant. 5. Also there is a big gap between the smallest and the largest LIRs. That means that the vast majority of fees continue to be paid by the smallest, small and medium-sized LIRs whereas the large and largest LIRs still contribute only a small amount (in relative terms). For instance, I own about an IPv4 /19 equivalent (= 32 x /24s). With this new model, my fees are increased from €1,800 to €3,080 which is quite much. If I would have an IPv4 /13 equivalent I would not be a sole trader but own a large company. I would not have 32 x /24s but 2,048 x /24s which is 64 times as much—but with this new model I would only pay €6,488. And if I would have an IPv4 /10, which is equivalent to 16,384 (sixteen thousand) IPv4 /24s I would only pay €8,503 though I would have 512 times as much space. This is not fair. And there is no simple middle course. If the stated goal is to make the scheme more fair then the larger and largest LIRs unfortunately need to pay way more because they are the only group which is not fee sensitive. It makes (almost) no difference for them whereas it does make a huge difference for us. Thank you for your time. --Kayo

3 3

Re: Minor issues in Sponsoring LIR Agreement
by Maria Stafyla 15 Jan '26

15 Jan '26

Hi Antonis, all Thank you for your email. We will review the template agreement in the coming period and make improvements where necessary. Kind regards, Maria Stafyla Specialist Legal Counsel RIPE NCC ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Antonis Chariton < <https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss-unmoderated@ripe.net…> daknob(a)daknob.net> To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Cc: Bcc: Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 20:36:20 +0100 Subject: Minor issues in Sponsoring LIR Agreement Hello everyone and happy new year! I was reading the Sponsoring LIR Agreement over at https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/number-resourc… and I wanted to point out two minor issues: 1) Typo in Article 1 Definitions (Independent Internet Number Resources): “IPv6)” should be “IPv6” 2) Correction in Article 1 Definitions (Reverse DNS Delegation): "and ipv6.arpa (IPv6).” - the correct zone is ip6.arpa I think we should fix them, but I’m sending this here in case anyone considers these important enough to amend their contracts :) Antonis <https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss-unmoderated@ripe.net…>

1 0

No Resource Transfers Allowed in January?
by Patterson, Richard (Senior IP Architect) 14 Jan '26

14 Jan '26

Hi Members, We've hit a kafkaesque bug with the RIPE NCC's policies, and I was wondering if anyone else has run into it? We've had a resource transfer request blocked until the 2026 membership fees are all paid up, the 2026 membership fees for which the invoices have not yet been generated or sent out yet......... This requirement is not specified in the Transfer Policy, but it is mentioned in the 2026 Billing Procedure. Do we think this requirement—effectively restricting transfers during the month of January—is sane and I just need to be more patient, or does it require a policy update or maybe just for a bit of common sense to be applied when requests are processed? -Rich Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky Limited and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075), Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) and Sky CP Limited (Registration No. 9513259) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky Limited (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD

4 5

Minor issues in Sponsoring LIR Agreement
by Antonis Chariton 05 Jan '26

05 Jan '26

Hello everyone and happy new year! I was reading the Sponsoring LIR Agreement over at https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/number-resourc… and I wanted to point out two minor issues: 1) Typo in Article 1 Definitions (Independent Internet Number Resources): “IPv6)” should be “IPv6” 2) Correction in Article 1 Definitions (Reverse DNS Delegation): "and ipv6.arpa (IPv6).” - the correct zone is ip6.arpa I think we should fix them, but I’m sending this here in case anyone considers these important enough to amend their contracts :) Antonis

1 0

Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models
by thiele＠holomua.de 21 Dec '25

21 Dec '25

Hi to everyone, I have looked at both models. If I have understood the models correctly, it is striking that small and medium-sized LIRs suffer a significant increase in annual fees in both models. Looking at the cost contribution per IP address, it quickly becomes clear that older LIRs with /4 and larger networks in particular are making disproportionately low contributions, even though they have allocated significantly more resources. This should definitely be addressed. Why is the cost contribution per IP not kept linear? Kind regards Peter -- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avast.com

13 16

Re: Consultation on Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models
by Denys Fedoryshchenko 16 Dec '25

16 Dec '25

Dear RIPE NCC, After reviewing Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation, two issues stand out. First, the use of complex Excel spreadsheets as “interactive calculators” is frankly disappointing. In 2025, this approach reduces transparency, makes independent verification harder, and discourages meaningful analysis. I did in 30 minutes a simple web-based comparison that shows the same calculations more clearly and allows direct comparison with other RIR fee models (https://better-ripe.github.io/calculator2025/ ) [1] Second, the results raise a serious equity concern. Model B appears to consistently benefit very large resource holders while increasing the relative burden on small members. Compared with other RIRs, RIPE’s proposal looks less balanced and less fair, despite equity being stated as a core principle. I would like to understand how equity is being measured here, and why RIPE NCC seems comfortable with outcomes that so clearly favor large holders. This feedback is meant constructively, but the direction is worrying. On Mon, 2025-12-15 at 15:14 +0100, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > We have opened Phase 1 of the Charging Scheme Consultation and invite > your feedback on two proposed models for the annual fee, which > represents the significant majority of the RIPE NCC’s income. > *What we are consulting on in Phase 1* The RIPE NCC’s income from > members consists of two parts - together > they make up the Membership Fee: > 1. Annual Fee - the main part of our income > > 2. Additional Fees - currently these are ASN fees, independent > assignment fees and other one-off charges > In Phase 1, our focus is only on the annual fee, because this is the > foundation of the Charging Scheme and the key element for our long- > term financial stability. > We are asking for your input on two possible annual fee models: > - Model A – Category-based model > - Model B – Formula-based model > For each model, we have published an explanation and an interactive > calculator so you can see how your annual fee would be calculated and > explore different scenarios based on your IPv4 and IPv6 holdings. > You can find the consultation details and the calculators at: > https://www.ripe.net/s/cs-model-consultation-phase-1/ > *What feedback we would like to hear* > At this stage, we are interested in how the models work in practice, > not in fixing the final revenue amount. > The figures you see are illustrative and not final. > We would particularly value your views on questions such as: > - Are there too many categories in Model A, or too few? > - Are the category boundaries appropriate > - Is a formula-based approach (Model B) preferable to a category- > based one? > > - Does the current formula setup make sense, or are there better > options? > > - Do the models adequately reflect the principles defined by the > Charging Scheme Task Force, especially the principle of equity? > > - Are there any issues you can see that we’ve overlooked? > Both models are still drafts. Your feedback now is essential before > we further develop the models. > Please share your input on the Members Discuss mailing list by the > end of January 2026. > We will of course follow discussions and we will address queries and > comments in early January after the holiday season. > *Next steps in the consultation* This consultation is part of a > three-phase process: > - Phase 1 (now): Consult on two annual fee models (A and B), with > calculators – published Dec 2025 > - Phase 2: Consult on separate fees (e.g. ASN and independent > resource fees) – planned for Jan/Feb 2026 > > - Phase 3: Publish a combined Charging Scheme proposal (Annual Fee + > separate fees) that incorporates member feedback from Phases 1 and 2 > – planned for April 2026 > The final Charging Scheme proposal will be presented for a vote at > the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2026. > I strongly encourage you to review the two models, use the > calculators, and share your perspective. Your participation is vital > in helping us develop a Charging Scheme that is stable, transparent > and equitable. > Kind regards, > Simon-Jan Haytink > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC > > > ----- > 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] ) https://github.com/better-ripe/calculator2025

2 1

RIPE NCC Quarterly Planning Q1 2026
by Boris Duval 16 Dec '25

16 Dec '25

Dear colleagues, We have now published the upcoming quarterly plans for our development teams: https://www.ripe.net/quarterly-planning <https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning> We publish these plans each quarter to showcase the work items we will be carrying out over the next months. We welcome your feedback and encourage you to suggest items that the RIPE NCC should be working on going forward. The plans cover the following areas: - RIPE Database - Business Applications, including the LIR Portal, Registry Services and other applications - DNS and K-root - RIPE Atlas - RIPEstat - Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) - Routing Information Service (RIS) - Information Security, Risk, and Compliance - Training and Certification If you have any questions or input on these plans, please share your suggestions on this list or the RIPE NCC Forum: https://forum.ripe.net/ Kind regards, Boris Duval

1 0

Future RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals
by office＠mrejitor.com 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

Dear community, I looked at both Category-based and Formula-based models and found a destructive issue with both. The root issue The scheme is too logarithmic. The average fee per IP ranges 5744 times! * The issue leads to the following consequences. Consequence one - market competition Members with fewer addresses should pay a significant share of their income to RIPE. There are many services in the â¬10 or less category in Bulgaria, Romania, and other countries. Small /24 operators should spend at least 4.47% of their income on RIPE fees alone. A prominent /8 owner will spend 0.00001% of that income. The ratio of 5,743 is significant. Consequence two - delaying the move to IPv6 Given the significant historical IPv4 address space, larger companies have fewer reasons to switch to IPv6. If we agree to further multiply this advantage, there will be fewer and fewer economic reasons to switch to IPv6. Consequence three - possible reduction in the number of LIRs With ratios of up to 5,743 times the fees per IP, one can expect the consolidation of LIR accounts to continue. Renting small blocks will be preferable to acquiring them. We already suffer from the declining number of LIR accounts. A decision that leads to future consolidation may require additional rebalancing in the coming years. Possible solutions * Better-balanced fees, with wider boundaries in both directions. A difference of no more than 256 times in per-ip fees. * A fee reduction for big entities if they return address space to RIPE. This reduction will actually pay off by reducing IPv4 queue wait time and, therefore, increasing the number of new members. Best Regards, Alexander 5744 is calculated by dividing the minimum fee per IP for /8 by the cost for /24. It could be up to 11,487 in case the address space is close to /7 IPv4 CIDR Max fee/ IP Discount from /24 /24 to /23 3.41016 0.00% /23 to /22 2.47656 27.38% /22 to /21 1.64746 51.69% /21 to /20 1.03906 69.53% /20 to /19 0.63306 81.44% /19 to /18 0.37598 88.97% /18 to /17 0.21918 93.57% /17 to /16 0.12585 96.31% /16 to /15 0.07143 97.91% /15 to /14 0.04013 98.82% /14 to /13 0.02237 99.34% /13 to /12 0.01237 99.64% /12 to /11 0.00681 99.80% /11 to /10 0.00372 99.89% /10 to /9 0.00203 99.94% /9 to /8 0.00110 99.97% /8 to /7 0.00059 99.98%

1 0