Hello, I agree. We are actually renting a server for offsite backups in Canada and the provider charges 1 Euro per month for 1 additional IP address. No way anyone would return unused IPv4 addresses. But after seeing the new updated calculator we would definitely return part of our IPv6 allocation if the charging scheme category A should be chosen. The "free" enlargement from /32 to /29 suddenly costs 350 Euro per year. -- Kind regards David e-mail: d.bruha@virtis.cz Dne čtvrtek 30. března 2023 15:22:15 CEST, Kaj Niemi napsal(a):
It won’t. I believe most will either a) rent out, or b) sell their unused IP addresses if it becomes a choice between having to pay for the privilege of keeping vs converting them to either continuous (renting out) or onetime (sale) revenue.
LIRs who have an acute IPv4 address deficit will, realistically, need to procure more addresses on the free market. That is, if they intend to grow their business and not let it stagnate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of José Manuel Giner via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 10:14:30 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Hello,
I think it is very necessary to address the problem of LIRs that need IPs in relation to LIRs that have +80% of their IPs unused.
How to fix? maybe a pay per individual IP model?
For example: 0.25 €/year per IP.
I think this will make those who have unused IPs give them back and reduce speculation, which I think are the two big problems.
Thanks!
-- José Manuel Giner https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fginernet.c
om%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4a cc9
23b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994467552%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8 eyJWIjo
iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7 C&
sdata=XwY9HPEkXKXBM%2BpxqAxU5OSX6NNV%2FvP46yUJSfQIC0M%3D&reserved=0 On 17/03/2023 10:24, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear all,
First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far.
I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome.
Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions.
1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe .net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fdistribut ion-of-total-allocated-ipv4-per-lir.png&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0
100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C63815776099 4
623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5gCFELEOWGX6ULpsEGUdpHH cczGA
ij3nMotVAWCFKXg%3D&reserved=0
I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe .net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fmember-sp read-across-categories.png&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3
cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CU nkn
own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=McgLLf5YS41Pc47Zbhz95myWZLA8TKDx0Jku5 FjY2