On Thu Sep 15, 2016 at 08:48:59AM +0200, Bastien Schils wrote:
On 14/09/2016 16:24, Rob Golding wrote:No it is not an attack, useless or disrespectful.
On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote:Can we keep it a clean conversation without "ad hominem" attacks?
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are atWhilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is
an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources.
using your model for their organisation
That remark was quite useless at best, disrespectful at worst.
It is central to the lack of consensus on charging model. LIR
are a diverse community, ignoring that will only prolong the
discussion
The flat pricing is the simplest model to apply to all. If a
proportional model is desired then it should relate to the cost
of service not the number of IPs or prefixes unless they have
a direct cost (they were allocated to RIPE for free?)
As a small LIR we would benefit if it was based on total IP
count but be worse off if it was quantity of prefixes as
we've had a number of small allocations due to not obtaining
a single large one early.
We'd probably benefit if it was based on hours of support used
as we interact with RIPE very little, usually initiated by RIPE
as some voted to change something.
I'm not sure why RIPE initiated this discussion, it just rakes
over old arguments that had no route to consensus
brandon
----
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.
On 09/15/2016 09:46 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
> If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do,Let's take it from another perspective:
> then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100
times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be
appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it
doesn't matter about the size of that range.
If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE?
Well, in my opinion: Yes.
I'm not sure about that..... newcomers (which by the current policy only get a /22) are probably where the NCC is spending the largest part of their effort. Is there any measurement already?
Would argue that any extra effort is already paid by the newcomers themselves in the form of the 2000 EUR setup fee.
And as a recent newcomer I am not really that impressed by what you get for that amount.
If you are a Dutch company they do not even send the paperwork by trackable means, but do not want to spend more than a stamp on you.
The first time they send the agreement by regular postal mail it never arrived, and it took three weeks before they could be bothered to resend it a second time.
That did arrive, despite them putting the address in the wrong format for my country on it, which doesn't exactly speed up postal sorting and delivery either...
Anyway, back on topic.
I would argue that differentiating membership fees based on size of assignment do would be fair.
The cost per customer is a lot higher for smaller members than large ones, and as such the latter have an economic advantage.
Furthermore the setup fee already provides a sufficient barrier preventing the number of companies signing up as LIR to explode.
No need to keep the membership fee artificially high for smaller member for that purpose.
Yours sincerely,
Floris Bos
----
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.