Dear RIPE NCC Members,

For years i've been told that every member should pay the same amount, because this is a membership, not a service. Suddenly i check my e-mail and see you're talking about a "new volume-based" charging scheme. Great! Then i start to read and i found that you want to charge for block assignments and not number of IPv4 Addresses + IPv6 Addresses + AS Numbers.

Lets be realistic... no one is counting block assignments. What real makes the difference between members is the number of IPv4 each member gets. 

If you want to do this, you should account for number of IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and not only resource assignments.

Let's say at this moment RIPE manages "601 532 288 IPv4 Addresses(?)" (source: https://www-public.imtbs-tsp.eu/~maigron/RIR_Stats/RIR_Delegations/RIPENCC/IPv4-ByNb.html), if they're all allocated, lets say LIRs are charged 0,25€ each IPv4 a year, a LIR would get 10240 IPv4 Addresses for 2560€/year and RIPE NCC would make 150M€/year only from IPv4 Addresses. (For comparation, a LIR with a /16 would pay 16384€/year)

I'm not saying this should be the value charged, but a base fee + a fee based on the number of IPv4 Addresses would make those LIRs that have a /16 laying around think twice if they really want to maintain it or should save money and return them for someone who needs it. 

Example Graph for charging based on IPv4 Address:

CIDRNumber of IPv4If 0,10€/IPv4/yearIf 0,15€/IPv4/yearIf 0,20€/IPv4/yearIf 0,25€/IPv4/year
/2425625,638,451,264
/2351251,276,8102,4128
/221024102,4153,6204,8256
/212048204,8307,2409,6512
/204096409,6614,4819,21024
/198192819,21228,81638,42048
/18163841638,42457,63276,84096
/17327683276,84915,26553,68192
/16655366553,69830,413107,216384
/1513107213107,219660,826214,432768
/1426214426214,439321,652428,865536
/1352428852428,878643,2104857,6131072
/121048576104857,6157286,4209715,2262144
/112097152209715,2314572,8419430,4524288
/104194304419430,4629145,6838860,81048576
/98388608838860,81258291,21677721,62097152
/8167772161677721,62516582,43355443,24194304

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:21 AM Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> wrote:
Hi,

On 4/17/19 13:02, REG ID: pl.skonet wrote:
> Dear RIPE,
>
> Who asked about "volume" (quotes intentional) charging?

I'm also interested to know who asked for the change of the charging
scheme and how has the RIPE NCC Board reached to the two options that
are now proposed.


The second option, option B, is not really a volume charging scheme. It
penalizes those that have received multiple smaller allocations instead
of a larger one. It also penalizes whoever decides to transfer parts of
an allocation. For example, let's say an LIR has a /16 allocation - it
would pay the €1150 + €50. Let's now say that one of their customers
really can not renumber and wants to buy the /24 they are using. Once
the transfer is complete the LIR will now have several allocations
(/17+/18+/19+/20+/21+/22+/23+/24) and will end up paying €1150 + €400.

Why is this "volume" charging scheme not taking into account the number
of IPs (which would make a lot more sense) an LIR has allocated and
instead it looks at the arbitrary number of allocations? Has the Board
analyzed what would happen if an LIR decides to complain that before
2012 the IP Resource Analyst that looked at his request decided to
allocate several smaller blocks instead of the large block it was asking
for.


I think (and I believe I have heard one board member saying) that this
proposal of a charging scheme was made SPECIFICALLY to create noise and
guide members to vote for no change. If we are given options, why not
multiple where some may make sense instead of 2 options (one where
nothing changes, second - poorly designed - where everyone will be
unhappy and thus nobody will vote for). Please see below.

I really want to hear from the Board and understand how and why they
have reached the conclusion that these are the only two options they
will propose the membership to vote on.

>
> First of all, please submit a plan to spend the huge amount of extra
> money you will get from option B. Today, you give the members a
> surplus from the annual budget, because you are not able to spend
> everything that you collect. I am definitely against option B.
>
> Please keep charging scheme as is.

If I be asked to vote for one of these two options I'll also vote for
the charging scheme to be kept as is.

I have mentioned a few ideas to a few of the Board members - ideas that
have been dismissed completely as far as I can see :(

Why is the board not proposing a charging scheme that charges every PI
holder €100 or even up to €400 every year - in order to decrease the LIR
membership fee with a few hundred €?

Why isn't the board talking about the removal of the difference in price
between PA and PI? If both PA and PI would cost the same, many PI
holders will decide to become members and the RIPE NCC would then be 60k
members strong instead of 20k.

Why is it that every time a new charging scheme is proposed, we are not
consulted? Even if, let's say, my idea would not be accepted, I'd like
to see it as one of the several options presented to members. At least
it would get dismissed by the membership and not by the board (who
apparently does not want anything to change).

Last question is related to the sign-up fee. We are nearing IPv4
depletion (haven't I heard this before, like a dozen times since 2012?)
and the number of members will start to decline significantly once the
RIPE NCC can no longer allocate IPv4. Why is the board keeping the €2000
sign-up fee in the charging scheme? What's the use of the sign-up fee
right now and what will be it's use once the RIPE NCC can not allocate
IPv4 any longer? Isn't this €2000 sign-up fee one of the barriers
forcing potential members into buying IPv4 PI?

You'll say that people will get /22s from the RIPE NCC quicker/cheaper
if they could setup an LIR for just €1400/year. Well, I agree with you,
but let's see if this €2000 sign-up fee still makes sense once the RIPE
NCC can not allocate IPv4 any longer.

my 2 cents,

elvis

--
Elvis Daniel Velea
V4Escrow LLC
Chief Executive Officer
E-mail: elvis@v4escrow.net
Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921


_______________________________________________
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/teotonio.ricardo%40webtuga.pt