- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Lu Heng 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

Hi I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on. Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions. Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense). Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should go for ipv6 or not. And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year. And if everyone pays same: 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes. Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs. But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do. So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it. Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

10 12

Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model
by poty＠iiat.ru 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat

7 8

Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by poty 14 Jul '12

14 Jul '12

Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat

1 0

"classful" charging scheme that still charges for resources
by Andrea Cocito 14 Jul '12

14 Jul '12

Hello all, after all the discussions I cannot understand what the problem would be with a scheme like the following: a) Member LIRs are divided into 16 categories, named /5, /6, /7, .. / 20, /21 b) Your category is the smallest route that could contain the total IPv4 allocated space of your LIR c) Your fee in euro is T/2^C, where C is your category and T the total RIPENCC costs. Seems simple and fair, it is still a category based model and thus it does not change the tax status of RIPE, and in example: - Up to 2048 IP addresses you are class /21 and pay about 100 euro - Up to 4096 IP addresses you are class /20 and pay about 200 euro - Up to 8192 IP addresses you are class /19 and pay about 400 euro - Up to 16384 IP addresses you are class /18 and pay about 800 euro - Up to 32768 IP addresses you are class /17 and pay about 1600 euro - Up to 65535 IP addresses you are class /16 and pay about 3200 euro ... and so on. Some corrections improvements might be considered to take in other exhaustable resources (IPv6 address space, ASn) and even to some extent non-exhaustable ones (number of tickets per year, number of records or operations in the database). Has a schema like this ever been considered or voted upon ? Regards, A.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
by Sebastian Abt 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

Am 10.07.2012 um 15:18 schrieb "Rob Golding" <rob.golding(a)othellotech.net>: > Perhaps a better approach would be to push for the overall budget to be reduced by 10% per year _every-year_, helping the RIR focus on what it's there for, and all the extraneous items that we fund as RIPE members can start to die off ? +1 in principle. Exact percentage should be assessed empirically. regards sebastian

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
by Jamie Stallwood 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

A flat fee would disadvantage small members even more as the "regular" fee would apply. I don't want to see membership being priced out so I support the simpler banded system proposed. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Sent from my Android Secured with Good (www.good.com) Managed by Imerja -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Jacob [ripe-ncc-members-list(a)internet24.de] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 01:15 PM GMT Standard Time To: Rob Evans Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net; exec-board(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 21:45 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: > This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill > that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," > will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do). Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one. As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.

4 5

New charging model
by eifel-net GmbH 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

Hello, for us the new charging model seems to be unbalanced. Bigger LIR, as for example big telcos (Deutsche Telekom in germany for example with lots of ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 they use, compared to small onces, as there is a fee-limit of aprox. 5000 EUR yearly. For smaller companies the new model will be an increase in cost, as the border to small as /22 is not high enough, so that they will be billed as regular (thus 50% of big LIR!). Next problem is, that big LIR may pick category "small" without beeing punished. Peter ============================================== Angaben gem. § 35a GmbHG ============================================== EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Michael Bergeritz Dipl.- Kfm. Peter Thiele Bendenstr.31-33, 53879 Euskirchen Tel. 0900-524 5 524 (0,99 EUR/Min aus dem deutschen Festnetz, Preis kann für Anrufe aus den Mobilfunknetzen abweichen.) (Installationsunterstützung Einrichten Internet-Zugang) Tel. 02251-9700-36 Fax. 02251-9700-37 (nicht nutzbar für Werbezwecke) eMail: info(a)eifel-net.net (nicht nutzbar für Werbezwecke) EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH ist eingetragen im Handelregister des Amtsgericht Bonn unter Registernummer HRB11527. Die Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer lautet DE186 267 460. Wir teilen hiermit offenkundig mit, daß wir keine Zusendung von Werbung per eMail oder Fax wünschen, wenn wir dieser vorher nicht ausdrücklich schriftlich zugestimmt haben.

11 14

Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Lu Heng 09 Jul '12

09 Jul '12

Hi Thanks for reply. On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel(a)titley.com> wrote: > On 09/07/2012 14:43, Lu Heng wrote: >> >> Hi Nigel: >> >> Thanks for sharing this. >> >> Correct me if I was wrong, to put in plain english for this long formal >> thing: >> >> most pay 2k-2.5k, large ones pay 4-5k, and very small one pay 1k. per year >> base. > > Yes, correct > >> >> If that is the case, then only the current "small" category people's >> fee are raised, is that correct? > > Yes > >> >> And I am not very clear about "Appendix III: Procedure for Members >> Selecting their own Membership Category", does that means everybody >> can select their membership category in which has no relevant to their >> resource count? so french telecom can select as a small one? > > No, you are absolutely right. But membership selections will be published, > so everyone can see that France Telecom is defrauding the rest of the > members by self declaring as small. We do however think that the majority of > members are honest and have a good idea of their own size. I think you might be right about french telecom as they are national company. But for many other business ISPs, if there is no punishment or if there is only counting on shame and blames(put on Frank's word), I would say a lot large LIR would go for regular if not small.(if they being blamed, they always can find XXX company have more resource than us but also selected small etc, as long as they are not the top on the list(so to say the largest one in small category), they will stay there even blame exsits), and another thing is, I am not very sure how well this self-declared system will work. And how you plan to publish the list? will that list based on name or the amount of resource count? e.g. Small LIR: A company /13 B company /14 C company /15 etc. If this is how it published, I think it might put quite some pleasure on the guy at top of the list in each category. If not, then I think a lot people can simply hide their name into the small LIRs as I don't think many of them are well know or many people well investigate other people's fees. > >> >> I think it might be a mis-reading here could you help me to understand >> it, thanks. > > No, you have understood perfectly. > > All the best > > Nigel -- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

1 0

Updates from RIPE on the DNS ussye
by Zoe O'Connell 25 Jun '12

25 Jun '12

I have seen no useful update from RIPE this morning, but I need something to pass on to internal staff and customers. Has anyone got anything? Opening a ticket is pointless as it won't get actioned quickly.

5 5

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012061901001911] Need help. Can't remove routes for ex Assigned PA.
by LeaderTelecom Ltd. 19 Jun '12

19 Jun '12

Dear Members, Please help what better to do in this case. We have allocated PA. From this space we Assigned PA to customer. Customer has own AS and he created routes. Route objects doesn't have our mnt-by. He has another carrier. The customer to which we have assiged PA space sending a lot of mails to Hotmail. We are receiving thousands complains per day from Hotmail. We suggested to block this IPs for Hotmail. They tell that it can be done only in automatic mode when hotmail will receive many complains for this IPs. We already found IPs in some black lists. RIPE position in this case. While routes doesn't have RIPE mnt record - they can't do anything. Routes should be removed by our ex customer. Ex customer position. He won't remove routes until we will return money back. And tell us that he doesn't send any e-mails - all was made by his customers. In our agreement written that we don't return money back in this case. And if we will return money back - anyway we don't have any warranty of removing routes. Questions: 1. How can we restrict using this routes right now? 2. How can we remove wrong routes (see an example bellow)? Additional information: ------------------------------ Example of route: route: xx.xx.xx.0/24 descr: route for xxxxxxxxxxx origin: asYYYY mnt-by: zzzzz-mnt source: RIPE # Filtered Where: - xx.xx.xx.0/24 - IPs from our allocation (Assigned PA). - ASyyyy - AS our ex customer. - zzzzz-mnt - MNT of our ex customer. -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd.

10 19