Hello.
Very good example of what it actually can be - with real math. Thank you!
I once again advise to put less charges on IPv6. Genrally it’s a good and correct approach. But in current reality this will result need to restructure v6 subnets for everyone, who opted into /29 but using /32 (which is what many small LIRs do) and create additional work for everyone. In some distant future there will be no difference but for now every occasion to motivate networks to have IPv6 should be valued.
Apart from that that’s the scheme I would be happy to vote for.
On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:21, Petru Bunea <suport@bunea.eu> wrote:
This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how this is a good example.
We are not trying to tax resource holders. Scheme exists to somehow evaluate possibilities of LIR tied to their real size and RIPE budget needs. It will never be exact - someone always will be unhappy. But this is how *all* other RIRs are charging.
Price you pay is not exactly amount of resources. Otherwise LIRs without v4 subnets should pay zero :)
Current alternative is everyone paying twice of what you mentioned regardless of resources.
Thanks
very good example Sebastian Others are doing it and Europe should too We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages.We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others.The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay they need to be calculated But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted forPozdrawiamGabriel Sulka-------------------------------------------------------------Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62Atel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00www.kompex.pl ; bok@kompex.pl ; kompex@nowytarg.net-----Original Message-----From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf OfSebastien BrossierSent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PMTo: members-discuss@ripe.netSubject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)Hello all,I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 votingoptions.*1 - Introduction:*This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not familiar with this, you can see an example here:https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-fees-calculator/The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much resources.The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, with infinite granularity (no categories).It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain viable when IPv4 has disappeared.I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has larger initial allocations.Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate debate on these subjects at a later time.The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members with a very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous and diverse.*2 - Charging scheme:*(Warning: math incoming !)IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated (excluding independent assignments and legacy)IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated (excluding independent assignments)Base_Fee = 638 EURBit_Factor = 1.31Minimum_Fee = 500 EUROffset_IPv4 = 8Offset_IPv6 = 24IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4)IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6)Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN)My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it should provide the same budget as the other options.If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can adjust Base_Fee.*3 - Examples:*50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees.No allocations: 500 EURIPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EURIPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EURIPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 1094 EURIPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 1434 EURIPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 1878 EURIPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 2461 EURIPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 3224 EURIPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 4223 EURIPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 5533 EURIPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 7248 EURIPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 9495 EURIPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 12439 EURIPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 16295 EURIPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 21347 EURIPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 27965 EURIPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 36634 EURIPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 47991 EURLargest LIR is just below 60 kEUR.There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these numbers.If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee schedule of the other RIRs.Thank you if you've read this far.Best regards,Sebastien Brossier_______________________________________________members-discuss mailing listmembers-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discussUnsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl_______________________________________________members-discuss mailing listmembers-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discussUnsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu