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.
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
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 ; bok@kompex.pl ; kompex@nowytarg.net
-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of
Sebastien Brossier
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM
To: 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
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
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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/daniel%40privatesystems.net
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu