As a small LIR, i would like to see something of the following per LIR (Staying with 1 vote per lir, as it is now)

- Base Membership Fee (something moderate like 1000 Euro/Year) - purely used for running the Registry/DB and the associated infrastructure.

- Then small "additional" fee based onhow many resources are allocated to a LIR. (0 if below a /19, More if above)

This would reflect the fact that every lir makes use of the registry/db to some extent.

ipe-members@sebastian-graf.at

Furthermore as a second idea i would also like to see that many of the "extra" expenses incured by the RipeNCC are moved to a second legal entidy that organisations can join and contribute to, if they are interested.

Alternativly this could also be done with a second budget, not tied to the registery (and therefore not included in the base fee). For this i would propose just tiers that organisations can pick up (something like bronze/silver/gold/platinum) with different pricing.

This would be:

- In person Training/Events

- Useful projects like Atlas,...

- Community funding of external projects.

A really "amazing" thing for the other budget/entidy would be if it implemented a yearly (or bi-yearly) vote, for members on how much (in percent of their contribution) should be spent on what project. Helping drive development in areas that are useful.

Kind Regards

I'm fine with paying a simple flat fee of 0.1 € per v4 address per year if that means one IPv4 Equals one vote.

If I pay more, then my vote counts for more, plain and simple.

If you don't think that will come to pass, then you don't understand the magnitude of politics and money as a driving force.

Daniel~

On 4/1/24 08:06, Mihail Fedorov wrote:

Which, by strange coincidence, almost identical to simple flat fee of 0.1 € per v4 address per year.

The only difference is that owner of single /24 can pay 25 € per year and owner of /16 - 6375 € without steps or limitations required.

Still giving RIPE approx 60 mil budget together.

Literally everyone benefits - including companies that actually need a lot of addresses and currently buying them on aftermarket terribly overpriced.

On 1 Apr 2024, at 15:38, ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> wrote:


The subject of this discussion go a lot ofside. I dont know why you bloat the theme (maybe it is intensionly ?) leading it to IPV4 holding. Our main focus _SHOULD_ be RIPE budget and financing + sustainabla operation in the next year and in the future at all. This of course is related with the members fee.

I done a little research and calculations, to tune my initial propousal so: By IANA public documents current delegated resources to RIPE are:

86016     IPV4 /19 blocks
66624     IPV6 /27 blocks
42882     ASN

If we have a hard coded limits for each LIR, equal steps up, and member fee of 750 EURO per year, each LIR can hold up to:

1 x /19 IPV4 BLOCK (sumary = 32 x /24 networks)
1 x /27 IPV6 BLOCK (sumary = 32 x /32 networks)
16 ASN numbers

After pass one of the above parameters even with one /24 IPV4, /32 IPV6, or ASN, +750 euro (1500 euro RIPE fee) up to the next proporcional limit:

2 x /19 IPV4 BLOCK (sumary = 64 x /24 networks)
2 x /27 IPV6 BLOCK (sumary = 64 x /32 networks)
32 ASN numbers

and so on...

This will generate 64 512 000 euros annual budget for RIPE which is absolutely enough for normal operations in each of the next 10 years, without need to increse members fee each year.

If somebody is afraid, that other RIRs will not keep going with RIPE fees, and there will be posibly leave of the big resource holders, keep in mind that all small members from the other RIRs will move to RIPE. Also good luck moving to ARIN db mess, the risk to lost route of your prefixes is nearly 90%.

----------
Off topic: About IPV4/IPV6 resources, it is imposible to create kind of ipv4 adress space extension. Many hardware do lookup over the ip header, it is not only software related. Even somebody develope a public standart about that, will take decades before all replacing equipment all over the world and another decades all to be workable. We have working IPV6, right now more than 52% has IPV6 connectivity. Biggest EU access operator already
give dual stack IPV4/IPV6 even to their end users, and activlly deploy IPV6 stack into their networks. It is much more cheaper in long perspective than to buy/rent IPV4 (NAT/proxy your clients/services over IPV4 and give them IPV6 real addresses). After 2-3 years the core of the Internet will be over IPV6, yes we will need to support IPV4 for the next 10-15 years to provide backward connectivity, but it is a dead end. All who thinks they will do a big profit from IPV4 adresses they hold, do seriously mistake in their logic, but anyway it is their problem. Those who dont implement IPV6 because "yay it is so scary and not working" in one moment will have to do this fast without experience, because will have seroius troubles with IPV4 connectivity.




Ivaylo Josifov
VarnaIX / Varteh LTD
+359 52 969393
Varna, Bulgaria

_______________________________________________
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/mihail%40fedorov.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/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/ripe-members%40sebastian-graf.at