- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel(a)privatesystems.net> wrote: > On 09/16/2016 05:57 AM, Prager-IT e.U. wrote: > > The plan I envision is quite simple, move from the current Flatrate > charging scheme to a system that charges members an amount for the > resources they are using. This will ensure that each and every RIPE NCC > member will pay their fair share. > > > 1. Charge per allocated IPv4 address with a linear system. > > price_per_ipv4 = required_budget / amount_of_addresses_in_use > your_yearly_membership_fee = amount_of_ipv4_you_use * price_per_ipv4 > > > Did you happen to read my reply to the thread. This is going to equate to > almost no resources left as a /22 will cost roughly 24 EUR per year. > I read everything said so far, to prevent this from happening we also need to increase the setup fee as I already outlined. > > This will also apply to Provider Independent(PI) assignemnts, anycasting > assignments and Legacy Internet Resources registered via a sponsoring Local > Internet Registry(LIR). > > > You're going to be hard pressed to charge Legacy resource holders, BUT, > even if you did, my above figure of a /22 costing 24EUR would probably be > cut down to 16 EUR or less > If the resources are sponsored via a sponsoring Local Internet Registry(LIR) I don't see why we should not be able to charge the Legacy resource holders. > > > IPv6 PI assignments and IPv6 IXP assigments will remain unchanged at 50,-- > Euros per year. > > > Moot point here since the number of IPV6 resources avail. > The goal is to provide a comprehensive plan for the membership to vote on. The way I see this needs to be in addressed as well in order for that to happen. > > > If we ever reach a point where IPv4 becomes obsolete revert back to a > Flatrate System as due to the nature of IPv6 a Flatrate system is a fair > choice. > > > 2. Increase the Setup Fee to an amount that reflects the current reality > of the transfer market, 6.000,-- Euros. > > > Read the 2015 Budget, they collected slightly over 5 Million EUR in setup > fee's, which got dispersed back to its members as a credit on next years > bill, increasing the setup fee will simply act to lower, even further, the > yearly cost. In 2015 Each LIR would have received 'roughly' a 415 EUR > credit on their bill... So we might as well just not charge for IPv4 upto a > /19 , and if you're going to up the setup fee's then we might as well make > that a free /18. > I am well aware of the numbers. Under my plan there most likely would never be any sum significant enough to disperse. > > > > > 3. Introduce an Inter-RIR Transfer Fee for resources that leave the RIPE > Region so people don't flee with their resources into a cheaper Region, > 3,-- Euros per IPv4 address. > > > If you do this, then it's a two way street. Not to mention that in the > growing global age, you can't tell me every IP being routed to the ripe > region is under RIPEs control. By adding additional hurdles folks will > simply ignore, and announce their space globally from the originating RIR > more so than they currently do now. > The goal of the change is to prevent people from fleeing with their resources allocated by the RIPE NCC from fleeing into cheaper regions after the new charging scheme has been approved. I am confused as to why you are going on about where resources are being announced from. > > > > 4. Buy Back IPv4 resources and return them to the free pool with any > excess money from members that are willing to give back resources. > > > With what money are these bought back and at what price? Only to re-assign > at a financial loss and then have to buy it back again? Grand scheme of > things, everybody here is ignoring the fact that, with basically 21,000,000 > EUR budget to disperse between all LIR's in RIPE you aren't going to change > the world. Aside from a lot of keyboard warriors pounding away with random > ideas that have no factual backings this thread accomplishes nothing. > After the membership has approved the new plan via a majority vote there will be an excess in money available due to the higher setup fee. The price will be determined by availability. Again, I am well aware of the numbers it just seems that you are unable to see the picture yet. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

5 5

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Jetten Raymond <raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi> wrote: > Hi Stefan and All, > > > > How on earth are You, or who has resources to, do the measurement of > addresses “in use”? > > > Regarding the charging scheme I am referring to all resources that have either been allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC as I think any other measurement would be silly as you obviously have no way to tell whether resources are actually in use or not. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

The plan I envision is quite simple, move from the current Flatrate charging scheme to a system that charges members an amount for the resources they are using. This will ensure that each and every RIPE NCC member will pay their fair share. 1. Charge per allocated IPv4 address with a linear system. price_per_ipv4 = required_budget / amount_of_addresses_in_use your_yearly_membership_fee = amount_of_ipv4_you_use * price_per_ipv4 This will also apply to Provider Independent(PI) assignemnts, anycasting assignments and Legacy Internet Resources registered via a sponsoring Local Internet Registry(LIR). IPv6 PI assignments and IPv6 IXP assigments will remain unchanged at 50,-- Euros per year. If we ever reach a point where IPv4 becomes obsolete revert back to a Flatrate System as due to the nature of IPv6 a Flatrate system is a fair choice. 2. Increase the Setup Fee to an amount that reflects the current reality of the transfer market, 6.000,-- Euros. 3. Introduce an Inter-RIR Transfer Fee for resources that leave the RIPE Region so people don't flee with their resources into a cheaper Region, 3,-- Euros per IPv4 address. 4. Buy Back IPv4 resources and return them to the free pool with any excess money from members that are willing to give back resources. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Chris Smith 14 Sep '16

14 Sep '16

Fearghas, I was specifically talking about 100% ready to go, 90% or 95% isn't good enough to turn off IPv4. Neither Sky nor BT have announced 100% ready to go as far as I am aware: http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2016/08/sky-will-push-all-su bscribers-onto-ipv6-network-by-summer-2016/ -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fearghas Mckay Sent: 14 September 2016 11:02 AM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Paul > On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:40, Paul Webb <Paul.Webb(a)clearstreamgroup.co.uk> wrote: > > Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help. How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ? Chris > If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. Apart from BT and Sky that have both just finished the v6 rollouts. f ---- 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/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
by Ping IP 26 Jul '16

26 Jul '16

Hello, A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account." I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account. I'd like to suggest to remove the one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 for each additional LIR account. Or at least lower the sign-up fee to an acceptable rate. I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account. Thanks for discussing this subject. Best regards, Abdelouahed Haitoute Ping IP network

42 77

Re
by Comtel 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

9 10

Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
by Brandon Butterworth 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

> > > each entity has one vote > > > even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity. > > > > In the current scheme, if you change the scheme that may change too > > We have a democratic system, if we follow your line of argumentation we > might as well setup a dictatorship. A large LIR may think you are planning a coup to overthrow a long established and member agreed system. > > > We are not shifting any costs, we are just asking each member to pay > > their > > > fair share for the amount of resources they are using > > > > Yes it is, it is shifting the cost to larger members, hugely > > I disagree, we are acting in the interests of the RIPE NCC membership. Some of the membership, mostly newer ones it seems who did not contribute to building it (I'm guessing from what you've said) Fairness is not one faction getting what they want to the detriment of the others. More so when the stated intent is to price them into giving up IPv4 space so you can have it instead. There is already a member agreed fair system for using money to move IPs between members > > > 8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case > > > breaking amount of money. > > > > I referred to the current scheme which is also hardly a business case > > breaking amount of money. So cost is not a good reason to change it > > especially when changing it will drive the sort of behaviour that > > RIPE are trying to prevent > > Asking the people with the least amount of resources to cover the > membership fee for the 1% is inherently unfair especially when we have the > tools to re-establish some fairness in an inherently unfair system. Fees aren't based on quantity of IPs they are based on cost to RIPE of managing memberships (RIPE can better explain the current scheme). The fee is currently equal for all - one membership, one vote, one fee > The current membership fee of 1400 Euros per year represents for small > business an unnecessary burden and is inherently unfair and it needs to be > changed and I am sure the voting will reflect that sentiment. The small business chose to become a LIR and incur that fee, that's hardly unfair when it was their choice and known when they decided to enter that business. It's not like they are being asked to pay a large amount where they hadn't before > You seem to not want to re-establish fairness and keep the system unfair > for the sake of not changing anything, I don't want that and I will try to > use the democratic tools we currently still have at our disposal to make an > inherently unfair situation a little bit fairer but you are obviously > entitled to your opinion and should vote accordingly. Don't make up opinions for me, I haven't stated a view of how things should be I just explored some possible outcomes of doing this. As a small LIR we would benefit greatly from this change, that doesn't stop me considering the other sides view (ie trying to be fair to all) and doesn't mean I am arguing against or for you, I will decide that after a reasoanble debate and considering several views. regards brandon

2 1

Ideas on how to promote IPv6
by Host Master 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

Rather than continue with the old discussion, I thought it would be more helpful to start a discussion where we come up with ideas that helps promote IPv6. Many of us RIPE NCC members already realise the value of IPv6, and how much better it would be for the Internet as the whole. Many of us are already implementing IPv6 on a large scale - including myself. There's a lot of websites that supports IPv6 already, especially the "major" ones, but if you look at Google IPv6 stats, you can see that only 12% of its users are on IPv6. The good news is that this IS twice as much as last year - so congrauations to everybody who put in a a great effort to do that. The bad news is, this still means 88% of the worlds population is still connecting from legacy IP only. This is our problem. ISP's - the people who give internet connections to the masses. This is the root cause of why we all still have to provide both legacy IP and IP to our customers, so that we can host services which will reach the greatest audience. We're not deliberately trying to slow down the deployment of IPv6 (well, at least, I hope we're not!). How do we turn this around though? How can we force ISP's to do what my ISP has done, and provide dual-stack IP for home and work connections? This is where we need to come up with suggestions. Suggestion: Tax IPv4 addresses on a per year or per quarter basis - both old allocations AND new allocations. How the taxing is done would have to be decided by a committee, but it should be a tax that cannot be passed on to the end user - i.e. the LIR themselves have to pay the tax, and they are forbidden to increase their costs to their subscribers. Condition: Every IANA member needs to impose this - i.e. RIPE NCC, AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN and LACNIC. It won't work if only one registry does this, we need a worldwide effort. Desired effects: * ISP's will hasten their IPv6 deployment * Old unused IPv4 address blocks will be given back to the RIR to avoid paying unnecessary taxes * The number of IPv6 users on Google's stats increases exponentially Suggestion: Politely mock people who don't support IPv6. Many of the members of RIPE NCC have managed to build up a "godlike" status for themselves, because they're just awesome. With that status carries a form of respect and admiration by his or her peers, and they are extremely influential in what they say or promote. Desired effect: Instill the thought that IPv6 is the right way to go in all of the minds of their colleagues and partners. Suggested comment: "You do realise this is the 21st Century, right?" Suggestion: Boycott companies or products that don't support IPv6. There are many products which still do not support IPv6. When companies phone us trying to flog their wares, the first question you should say to them is "I'm not interested unless your product fully supports IPv6." When choosing a new XYZ solution, actively check if the product supports IPv6, and if it does not, move on to the next contender. Don't be afraid to use the "request a quote" feature to ask if the product supports IPv6. Desired effect: Companies will start taking IPv6 support more seriously if they realised people are going to stop buying their product unless they do. Thanks for taking the time to read this - if there are other suggestions which help promote IPv6, please contribute. Lester Clayton Technical Manager - Netscenario AS http://www.netscenario.no

2 1

Not updated bogon lists for /8 185
by Matej Šerc 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

Hi, we have received our chunk of v4 addresses from /8 185 in May and since all new allocations are done from the same, I am writing to reach out to other members who might have the same issue as we do. Some bogon lists, for example pfSense's https://files.pfsense.org/lists/fullbogons-ipv4.txt are not updated regularly (and 185.152.0.0/13 is listed as bogon network there) and our clients have issues accessing networks with firewalls that are using pfSense's filter bogons functionality (and use their bogon network list as a source). We have already contacted pfSense to clear it up, but there might be still some other lists that are used in some firewalls and intead of some "partial whitelisting" practices I would recommend to get those list providers update the information they're providing to their users. Matej -- Matej Šerc ELMITEL d.o.o. Orehovci 1a SI-9250 Gornja Radgona T: +386 (0)2 564 88 60 M: +386 (0)40 167 589 F: +386 (0)2 564 88 61 Company W: www.elmitel.com Online Store W: www.elshop.eu E: matej.serc(a)elmitel.com

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
by Comtel 24 Jul '16

24 Jul '16

5 5