Where have I said it should be 1 EUR across the board? It doesn’t have to be 1 EUR, but it also doesn’t have to be 333 the difference. It can be progressively cheaper, but not at such a large difference. Also, FYI, UK Gov or any Gov, could always put back IPv4 if they find it to be too expensive. Just like they force people and companies to put back on the market real estate that have a very high yearly tax. How would that work out for a change? Call this a tax hike on public property, like IP addresses. Maybe they would in fact like it, since it’s their way of doing business. Otherwise, with this model, we will just move the burden from the big ISP/companies/resource holders to the smaller ones. Thanks.
On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:25, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to pay 1 Euro per IP for a /8
Let me know how that conversation goes :)
On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea 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.
Thanks
On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi@kompex.pl <mailto:gabi@kompex.pl>> wrote:
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 for
Pozdrawiam Gabriel Sulka
------------------------------------------------------------- Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 www.kompex.pl <http://www.kompex.pl/> ; bok@kompex.pl <mailto:bok@kompex.pl> ; kompex@nowytarg.net <mailto:kompex@nowytarg.net>
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Sebastien Brossier Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Hello all,
I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting options.
*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-f <https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f> ees-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 EUR Bit_Factor = 1.31 Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR Offset_IPv4 = 8 Offset_IPv6 = 24
IPv4_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 EUR IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30: 1094 EUR IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29: 1434 EUR IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28: 1878 EUR IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27: 2461 EUR IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26: 3224 EUR IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25: 4223 EUR IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24: 5533 EUR IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23: 7248 EUR IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22: 9495 EUR IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21: 12439 EUR IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20: 16295 EUR IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19: 21347 EUR IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18: 27965 EUR IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17: 36634 EUR IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16: 47991 EUR
Largest 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 list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste... <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu