Hi,

No, not really.

The legal/financial perspective has been that RIPE is a non-for-profit organisation.

This proposal doesn't imply that the aggregated membership fees should exceed the running costs for the oranisation. Only how they are distributed among the members.

Much of the discussion has been that it's unfair that new LIRs with only a /22 ipv4 have to pay as much as all others.

A new LIR is in a good position to dualstack every single device from the start, meaning that if they can end up with a lower fee than the older LIRs, who have millions of devices to dualstack before they qualify for the lower fee.

The real difficulty would be how to measure the actual distribution.

It likely that this model doesn't cause a much larger cost for the large players than today, but it also means that a new provider that choose to offer ipv6-only or dualstacked services get away at a much lower cost.

It makes more sense to promote the adoption of todays technology, rather than clinging on to things of the past (IPv4) that can't be changed enough to make a difference anyhow.

Example of weights

singelstacked ipv6, factor 1

dualstacked, factor 10

singlestacked ipv4, factor 1000

Over time the amount of singlestacked ipv4 LIRs will go away, which means that we slowly move back towards the same equal fee structure we have today.

/Robin

On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 07:27 -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote:

Robin,

Not to be rude, but we've already explained why this is not possible for RIPE to do several times in this thread both from a financial and legal perspective.

Daniel~

On 09/23/2016 05:30 AM, Robin Johansson wrote:
Hi,

If we are to base membership fees on resources then the only way that makes sense today is to make it really expensive if you're not giving your subscribers ipv6 addresses.

Could even have it with multiple tiers

majority of subs singlestacked ipv4: really expensive

majority dualstacked: fairly cheap

majority of subs singlestacked ipv6: really cheap

This makes it very easy for all the new "small" LIRs to reach the fairly cheap fee, as they don't have a lot of subscribers to dualstack. And it gives incentive for every LIR to at least dualstack, maybe move away from ipv4 all together. Also to ensure that their subscriber base have modern equipment capable of handling ipv6.

The final /22 ipv4 is enough to serve huge numbers of eyeball subscribers, if used wisely for supporting services and nat64 pools (or similar technology).

And as more and more services get ipv6 the number of subscribers served through those pools can be increased even further.

/Robin

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:51 +0200, Tim Armstrong wrote:
Rather than bickering over the last scraps of IPv4, saving smaller LIRs a few hundred euros, attempting to somehow screw the older LIRs, or three at the same time. Wouldn't our time be better spent working out ways to improve end user adoption of IPv6?

I'd like to propose RIPE set up a fund (summer of code style) for the implementation of native IPv6 support in open-source software (such as cloudsta k, etc) and simplifying end-user adoption. Perhaps we should even offer a free public IPv6 tunnel service for natural persons similar to the service currently offered by hurricane electric.

-Tim

On 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote:

On 09/22/2016 01:57 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:

I'm not saying that a discussion is bad, but I'm simply saying that most of the discussions are being had are not based on fact.

To my knowledge RIPE doesn't have a list of members categorized by assignment size, so this is something that someone would need to parse the RIPE db for, it's all public record so it can be done.

Counting all allocated IPv4 each LIR has, and converting it back to CIDR:

CIDR Number of LIRs

<= /24 1
<= /23 4
<= /22 6051
<= /21 1582
<= /20 1638
<= /19 1547
<= /18 1040
<= /17 709
<= /16 386
<= /15 293
<= /14 134
<= /13 110
<= /12 80
<= /11 64
<= /10 25
<= /9 14
<= /8 6
<= /7 2

IPv6 only 241

If we were to take ARIN's fees as example where up to and including /20 is less expensive than RIPE's current fees, 9276 out of the 13686 LIRs with IPv4 would pay less.
Not just new ones...

Total income would be similar.

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.
----
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.
----
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.
----
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.