This is exactly scheme offered initially which RIPE board doesn’t want to consider. Exact counts with exact numbers. I advice only one change - removing size based price on IPv6 subnets - there is no lack of supply for them (and will never be) and everyone is advised to have /29 (or earlier /32). Making it pricy can demotivate LIR from owning v6 while we need opposite. It’s better for everyone to keep it free or with some low flat fee. That’s my personal opinion, but if someone thinks IPv6 should be in the same scheme - I’m ok with that as well.
On 12 Apr 2024, at 16:54, Claudius Zingerli <claudius.zingerli@ksz.ch> wrote:
Hi,
This is in my opinion by far the best proposal yet! Thanks for putting the numbers together. "Have more = pay more" is the way to go, not categories, not flat. IPs and ASNs are public resources and people should pay for their consumption (e.g. like water, electricity, gas). On the mailing list, there were many requests for such a model, so I cannot understand why RIPE NCC hasn't yet offered such a model - especially as all other registries (ARIN/Afrinic (stepwise(#IPs)) and APNIC (log(#IPs)) go into that direction. The linear approach is easy to understand (Flat Fee per IP) and IMHO the best approach against hoarding or "optimizing".
I would like to separate the discussion between "Charging Model" and "Ripe NCC Budget". Budget can be handled separately (and in the AGM); this is only about the "Charging Model".
I'd take the current RIPE NCC expenses, split that into EUR per currently allocated IPv4/32, IPv6/48 and ASN and base contributions on individual LIR allocations/assignments. e.g:
Current budget: 44M EUR
IPv4/32: 836 M (93549 prefixes) -> 26M EUR / 836M 0.031 EUR per /32 7.92 EUR per /24 31.67 EUR per /22 253.3 EUR per /19 51.9 kEUR per /8
IPv6/48:11801 M (26351 prefixes) -> 7.3M EUR / 12G 0.000062 EUR per /48 "free" 40.46 EUR per /32 324 EUR per /29
ASN/1: 39255 -> 11M / 39k 276.5 EUR per ASN
=> This change is neutral to the RIPE budget; i.e. members pay the same on average, smaller members pay less, larger members pay more. Very easy!
Regards,
Claudius
-- Kantonsschule Zug/AS34288 Claudius Zingerli, Dr. sc. ETH Zürich Technischer Leiter Informatik,NOC Luessiweg 24 6300 Zug Switzerland claudius.zingerli@ksz.ch
On 12.04.24 06:21, ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED wrote: Proposal about resources based fee was been rejected early - because RIPE doesnt offer unclear scheme. Nor category based, its must be flat resource based - i.e. linear. Not sure about rules allow it, but Im sugget to scheme with direct impact on resources. (and can offer Excel calculator for that) TOTAL = amount of entries IPv4 + amount of entries IPv6 + amount of entries ASN For current RIPE allocations its will be IPv4 SHARE (%) 58,7771% IPv6 SHARE (%) 16,5582% ASN SHARE (%) 24,6648% When RIPE saying - need 44M EUR funds in budget - okay! Then: - IPv4 SHARE - 25 861 909 € - IPv6 SHARE - 7 285 594 € - ASN SHARE - 10 852 497 € What are next? Next is making minimal countable resource: - IPv4 - is 1 x IPv4/32 - IPv6 - is 1 x IPv6/48 - ASN - is 1 x ASN Just now we can make calculation of membership fee based on this values For example: - Small LIR with 1 ASN, 1 IPv4 /24 and 1 IPv6 /32 - will be billed as: 7,91 € (IPv4) + 40,46 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 325 €/YEAR - Some "old" small LIR with 1 ASN, 2 IPv4 /22 and 1 IPv6 /29 - will be billed as: 63,29 € (IPv4) + 323,69 € (IPv6) + 276,48 € (ASN) = 663 €/YEAR Its doesnt have any "corruption" or "lobby" variable, only fair share - have more = pay more, have less = pay less. Very simple. Are you agree? (Hope you reply)
_______________________________________________ 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