+1 for Sebastian Wiesinger and Gert Döring from my side.
We are a small ISP and will be hurt by a price increase for PI and AS resources, because we are doing business with them.
75€ are an irrelevant level of pricing. Even 1000€ per year is not that much compared to the other costs we have (personal, energy, licences, taxes, hardware, …).
OTOH those independent resources are a burden to all of us, because they require resources at each of our routers: They
increase the routing table and we have no option to filter them out (like we could do on traffic engineering at PA space). So I’ve to compare the increasing hardware costs against a „prohibitive” fee. Not an easy decision.
Lutz Donnerhacke
Von: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2026 11:12
An: members-discuss@ripe.net
Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
> On 11. Mar 2026, at 00:36, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
>
> I completely disagree with you.
>
> I've personally proposed several linear models. I've proposed various risk
> scenarios for the NCC and burden on participants. All proposals are being
> ignored. Linear models are simply being removed from discussions by the
> administration. Why? The MAJORITY of those participating in this
> discussion here have spoken about linear models! This gives me reason to
> suspect a certain vested interest on the part of the group and those who
> set its goals.
The majority of those participating in this discussion is not the majority of those
reading or voting. There are not a lot of members that are outspoken about linear models.
I’m having trouble to understand which group you mean. The RIPE NCC?
The charging scheme taskforce? The members? Could you define what you have identified
as the group having a vested interest in keeping linear models out of the charging scheme?
> You claim IPv4 is closed. Then explain to us why the market price of one
> IP address is already reaching $50? Why don't we see free resources, only
> rising prices?
The prices for IPv4 are falling for a while now. Still there will be no free resources until IPv6 adoption reaches 100%.
(Taken from https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales)
> The schemes proposed by the working group not only create inequality among
> NCC participants; they cement a system in which the majority will pay for
> the very profitable business of a small number of NCC participants. This
> group of participants has historically acquired vast amounts of address
> space, in part by establishing an inadequate distribution model. Although
> warnings about the risks of such a "helicopter distribution" of resources
> have been voiced repeatedly, it seems as if the group is strictly
> advocating for their interests. This is unacceptable!
No-one is paying for the profitable business of anyone. Your membership fees
are not handed out to other RIPE members. You’re paying for your RIPE NCC
Services.
This myth of an “inadequate distribution model” comes up again and again,
can you define what you mean by that? The policy before the runout was
based on the demonstrated need for addresses. Everyone that could proof
a need for addresses got them. That doesn’t seem inadequate to me.
There are no more IPv4 addresses to distribute so I’m not sure what you mean by
“helicopter distribution”. There is no cake left to hand out.
> The refusal to discuss linear models has led to the failure of votes on
> new models time after time. This, as I understand it, also benefits this
> group of NCC members.
We voted almost 15 years ago for a flat model. This model was again and again chosen.
The RIPE NCC is a membership organization, not a commercial undertaking.
A strict “price per IP” model would move it towards a commercial offering which has
a whole lot of implications. This was discussed again and again.
I would assume that if a majority of members thinks that a more resource based approach
to the fees would be good they would vote for the charging scheme model that moves
towards that goal? That wasn’t the case in the past. The last time there was a category based
model to vote on was for the Charging Scheme 2024 and that option didn’t win.
> I believe the working group should be disbanded. Its work is pointless;
> we've already voted against such payment options twice.
We voted to keep the current model. If that is what the members want that is fine.
> Ultimately, it's not the administration that decides what the payment
> model should be. It should be the decision of NCC members, and it should
> be a fair choice with all options, including linear models.
>
> Otherwise, all these "elections" will once again degenerate into a farce!
What elections are you talking about? If you’re unhappy, there is an Executive Board Election coming up.
I don’t see you on the candidate list right now but there is still time. If you want change there is your chance
to influence the future of the organization.
In general I don’t like these more or less subtle hints that there is supposed to be
some sort of secret group or cabal or whatever you want to name it. The truth is that
there are a lot of people and most of them have different goals and motivations.
Getting 100% what you want is basically impossible. It will always be a compromise.
Best Regards
Sebastian
--
|
|
|
noris network AG |
|
Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel |
