- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

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

24 Jul '16

On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 10:18:19AM +0200, Prager-IT e.U. wrote: > > With membership fee based on number of /24 then members may decide > > to also get one vote per /24. Would they vote for this scheme (do > > they get their N*/24 votes before or after this vote...) > > I don't understand what you are trying to say I'm saying that if fees are proportional to resource then the members with more resource (/24's or whatever the measure) may wish to have a quantity of votes proportional to the resource they pay for > 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 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 > 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 > These changes will also bring a very real cost to > super large LIRs that hold a ton of resources and may > finally spark some meaningful IPv6 adoption. It may but the access networks with large amounts of IPv4 are adopting IPv6 already, it takes a long time and it's only been started in the last few years but it's happening in large chunks, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoqGvZr4Uto The hard bit is content hosters who mostly have enough space and don't have enough IPv4 that charging more for it will be a large incentive brandon

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
by Prager-IT e.U. 24 Jul '16

24 Jul '16

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon(a)bogons.net> wrote: > On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 08:27:38AM +0200, Prager-IT e.U. wrote: > > Membership fee after we have switched to a per /24 system: 8,23 Euros per > > /24 per Year > > > > Therefore it is quite clear that we need to change the charging scheme > via > > majority vote to a per /24 system as supported by the numbers above. > > With membership fee based on number of /24 then members may decide > to also get one vote per /24. Would they vote for this scheme (do > they get their N*/24 votes before or after this vote...) > I don't understand what you are trying to say, each entity has one vote even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity. > > The aim is for some smaller members (like us, so we'd win) to shift > the balance of cost to larger members? That sounds fine, however the > fees are hardly huge and if they can't afford them it sounds like > the business case for having a LIR is marginal, they'd be better > off money wise and dfz table size using an upstreams space. > 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. I am just calculating in terms of /24s as that is easiest to calculate to base the membership fee of. For example if you hold one /22 you will be charged, 4*8,23 Euros, 32,92 Euros per Year as you hold four /24s in size in total. 8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case breaking amount of money. These changes will also bring a very real cost to super large LIRs that hold a ton of resources and may finally spark some meaningful IPv6 adoption. > > If the aim is to make it cheap enough they can go crazy taking > extra LIRs to get /22s then don't bother, that scheme was to > moderate demand and there'd likely be other measures introduced > to preserve that > > brandon > I don't understand what you are trying to say.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
by Prager-IT e.U. 24 Jul '16

24 Jul '16

Dear RIPE NCC members, it seems that nobody has run the numbers yet, so let’s just do that. LIR Count: 13499 Allocated IPv4 Count: 587766784 Allocated IPv4 Count in terms of /24s: 2295964 Collected membership fees based on the membership count: 18.898.600 Euros per year Membership fee after we have switched to a per /24 system: 8,23 Euros per /24 per Year Therefore it is quite clear that we need to change the charging scheme via majority vote to a per /24 system as supported by the numbers above. 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

1 0