On 27/05/2026 10:05:20, "Mihail Fedorov via members-discuss" <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
I'd like to object to how this vote is being framed. This isn't how voting is supposed to work.
I’d like to object to all those objecting :) The vote is done and it repeats the result from each of the previous attempts to force in categories. This time despite it being arranged to incentivise 75% of members to choose it. Next time is it a reduction for 90% at the expense of the remainder?
A tiered model is supposed to distribute expenses evenly across members in proportion to their size, and consumer size is reasonably well estimated by the size of the IPv4 space in use - that, and only that, is why IPv4 sizing is relevant to this discussion.
That is bad logic, there are many where IPv4 size is not a reasonable proxy for organisation size and financial situation. The flat rate does however distribute expenses evenly across members so it is at least founded on a reasonable premise.
this model simply shifts expenses away from completely empty LIRs onto everyone else
Any category system does that. They are fudge between a flat rate and a per prefix rate, the only two fair systems. Categories intentionally introduce some inequity. This system added a new peril, the categories incentivise merging of LIR for a significant saving, which other members who cannot do that would pay for instead. There may be a case for a different membership class/fee for the absolutlely tiny members though. Say a v6 only membership that encourages the personal LIRs to migrate, and maybe for a single v4 /24 too.
A real tiered model, in my opinion, would make huge international Tier-1 operators pay six- to seven-figure fees, while a regional LIR with a couple of nets would pay less than it does today. Proportionally. I see this as the only legitimate and fair model.
Proportianal is not tiered, it is just proportional.
It would help the discussion a great deal if members here recognised that IPv4 plays a small role in it - purely as an indicator of LIR size.
A bad indicator and one that will no longer work as IPv6 take up grows, then we are back to a mostly flat allocation so a flat fee. Why have this argument each year until then. brandon