All other RIR have tiered charging and the sky didn't fall.
Nobody's saying charge per /24 proportionally, it should be tiered and logarithmic like everyone else.
I don't know why large LIRs with hundreds of /24 are scared of paying more than 1850 eur which is what they rent out one /24 for.
What you're saying is very wrong.
Now all LIRs are paying the same and still large LIR are controlling RIPE and making everybody pay for their resources while they only pay 1850 eur per year for all the resources they're controlling and making money out of.
I'll state what no one else has in very
simple terms.
The moment your single /24 LIR pays 100
EUR /year because it's small and the LIR with a /8 pays 100,000
EUR /year is the moment your voice will get taken away.
The best way to motivate corporations
of that size to get interested is to charge them ridiculous
amounts of money. Mark my words, RIPE would be easily taken over
and controlled by the top 10-20 resource holders if you ever tried
to charge per /24 , and they'd make sure your voice is never heard
again.
It's simple really, if you want an
equal voice in the direction of RIPE, then everyone needs to pay
the same amount. If you want to watch your privileges get stripped
away, try and change that to where you charge by the /24.
Daniel~
On 5/30/25 1:48 PM, Jean Salim wrote:
Just to clarify so there's no misinformation. This
thread's not about taking anybody's IPv4 allocations and
redistributing it. It's about large resource holders paying
their fair annual maintenance share.
One of the LIRs I represent has only ONE /24 or
256 IPs that they purchased, they pay 1850 EUR a year to ripe
which is a substantial amount in a country like Lebanon.
While LIRs that have hundrends or even thousands
of /24s pay the same 1850 EUR amount while if they closed
their businesses and rent their IPS out, they would make
hundreds of thousands of Euros anually.
You are intentionally misleading this
discussion, please open a new thread about IPv6 transition
and discuss this subject with whom you want to.
This thread's title is clearly about the charging
scheme, not about IPv4 distribution nor about IPv6
transition.
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at
8:07 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:58:00PM +0300, Jean Salim
wrote:
> Each time there's a discussion about resource holders
paying their fair
> share according to their resource holdings at RIPE,
like other RIR, you
> take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that
is IPv6 transition.
This is the only relevant discussion. There is not enough
IPv4 available
to fulfill all the demands people have - very simple math.
So whatever we do will just result in more squabbling and
complaints from
other people that "THIS IS ALL SO UNFAIR" - yes, this is
why we made IPv6
policies where every but the most large LIRs can have more
address space
than they will ever need, by asking politely.
Guess what, we knew 15+ years ago that IPv4 would not
last, and made
policies where networks voluntarily(!) restricted
themselves(!) so late
comers could still have some space, to help with the
transition. That
space is now gone, transition has not been done, and -
surprise - we see
complaints that IPv4 is not distributed fairly.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v.
Bomhard,
Karin Schuler,
Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279