This is an excellent analogy and I was tempted to do the maths myself. I don't agree with the scam part, but certainly it's overwhelmingly obvious that the larger providers need to pay multiples more than the small providers to achieve equal economic weight of force by IP allocation.

Excuse my simplifications, but sometimes it's necessary to critique an economic model by comparing it to others.
If I use 1000watts of electricity I don't expect to be billed the same as a company using 1million watts per year.

Breaking the subject down into actual base cost of IP space: Electricity, it's overwhelmingly obvious the smaller providers are paying the electric bill of the largest.

I'd rather not - it needs to be fairer, and I wouldn't expect a revolution, but I don't expect to be robbed.
This is not a monopoly board, and because we turned up late as a player, I don't expect to be paying cash to the hotels I've apparently landed on every turn without even knowing.

Vote Model 2, but honestly Lukasz is right, it needs to go further.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 09:01, Łukasz Jarosz <lukasz@jarosz.pl> wrote:
Hi,
I always liked math so after reading this whole topic I decided to do some.
I reviewed Ivaylo calculations and adjusted them to simply divide RIPE budget of 40mil and divided it by RIPE operated/owned IP space size and I came to price of 0,06EUR per IPv4 address (which is very little compared to fees for static IP space that most of the big telecoms charge).
Thus according to this calculations to evenly contribute to RIPE budget:
  • my small LIR announcing 3072 IPv4 addresses should be paying 184,32 EUR
  • Daniel Pearsons (hoarding - as was called by Josh Jameson ) LIR should be paying 4024,32 EUR
  • Josh Jameson's AS60751 should be paying 107,52 EUR
  • Deutsche Telecom AS3320 (assuming that all of its announced IPv4 space belongs to RIPE region) according to bgp.he.net announces 34 109 952 IPv4 address thus should contribute 2 046 597,12 EUR
  • Orange Poland AS5617 (that's not their only one ASN :wink wink:) according to bgp.he.net announces 5 510 400 IPv4 addresses thus should contribute 330 624 EUR

I can go on like this for a while about another organizations, but I hope you get the picture, that argumentation that financial incentives will help IPv4 recycling is complete SCAM AND LIE.
Furthermore let's make another calculation. In Poland average price per ISP service is about 12 EUR per month which adds up to 144 EUR per year. So I can make 442 368 EUR per year out of this IPv4 space. Thus in model 1 and 2 my prognosed current fee of 2050 EUR is about 0,4% of my yearly revenue. Let's take as example Deutsche Telekom, which according to random google search last year [1] had revenue of about 114 400 000 000 EUR. We can easily calculate that their current fee of 2050 EUR (assuming only their ASN in model 1) is 1,79e-6 % of their revenue. That's over 200 000 times less. Even with my previously calculated 2 046 496,12 EUR fee that is only 0,001% of their revenue. Now it would be only 20 times smaller revenue percentage.
Regardless of this offtopic analysis, I really want to put stress on three points:
  • Calling any of these charging models fair and aimed at helping recycling IPv4 is outrageous insult and lie.
  • I hope that finally we as community realise that RIPE funding scheme heavily favours big resource holders and this need to change.
  • Only sustainable solution for IPv4 address space usage is to finally move to IPv6 where resources is enough for everyone everytime .

Best regards,
Lukasz Jarosz

[1] https://www.telekom.com/en/investor-relations/publications/financial-results/financial-results-2022


On mar 9 2023, at 3:38 pm, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Considering the 2023 budget [1, page 6] is a round 40M EUR, you are willing to add 9.6M EUR extra just like that?


Kaj




-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of ivaylo
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 14:21
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024

Hello,

Nor scheme 1 nor scheme 2 are good and fair. Scheme 2 is litle step in the
right direction but still far from from what must be.

By IANA public documents delegated resources to RIPE are:

688128 IPV4 /22 blocks
2131972 IPV6 /32 blocks
42882 ASN

By official data RIPE LIRs are 22500

If constant yearly fee for each LIR is 300 euro, and charge 15 EURO for
each block and ASN the LIRs holds (on /22 IPV4, /32 IPV6, and 1 ASN)

RIPE will collect:

22500 * 300 = 6 750 000 EURO
(688128+2131972+42882)*15 = 42 944 730 EURO

SUM: 49 694 730 EURO (nearly 50 milions)

Which seems more than enough RIPE to function normally !

On yearly basis RIPE can revisit member taxes depending if are collected
more or less money and to ask for increase of constant LIR taxes (300 euro)
or to return back money to LIRs (as RIPE done it up to 2021)

That will be fair charging scheme for me. As more resources you hold, as
bigger your organisation is, as more you have to pay.


Ivaylo Josifov
VarnaIX / Varteh LTD
Varna, Bulgaria



_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list

_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
_______________________________________________
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/james%40gamerdating.com