What makes you think I was satisfied back then? It was and still is unfair. On Sat, 31 May 2025, 19:10 Evgeniy Brodskiy, <Evgeniy.Brodskiy@kyivstar.net> wrote:
Конфіденційно/Confidential
Hi Jean,
I'm really interested in understanding your perspective. If you became an LIR 5 years ago, when there was already a fixed fee and free IPv4 addresses were practically unavailable, it's practically the same situation as now. What has changed that satisfied you then but no longer satisfies you now?
P.S. In any case, if we talk about cost distribution between LIRs, the RIPE costs should be fairly distributed based on the consumed RIPE services (that bring these costs) by each LIR, not on the address allocation size for this LIR. RIPE services include different services and projects. These services are consumed by different LIRs almost independently of IPv4 allocation size.
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:06 PM *To:* Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> *Cc:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Let me understand you well, we shouldn't have tiered charging because other LIRs are doing it and that would be copying?
A tiered model is not right because it's of the benefit of the large majority of LIRs, but because it's fair.
What has the cost per IP or economies of scale have anything to do with this discussion, this discussion is how to FAIRLY distribute the RIPE costs, and anyone that's 5 years or older knows that this current flat fee is very unfair for most LIRs, which are small.
I don't understand why large LIRs are so much against this. Nobody's asking you to pay millions, but come on, it's only fair that you pay a bit more than LIRs with one /24 allocation are you that greedy?
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 15:53 Kaj Niemi, <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Assuming Gert (or his employer) really has 11872 addresses, as you claim, the LTV is significantly higher to the organization considering what they've paid over the years.
Besides your statement, that a tiered model is the right thing to do [for your benefit is implied here], there isn't anything supporting it. There is a term for copying another someone else's charging scheme or business model. It's called cargo culting. They might have made other assumptions than what you have.
Similarly, I can claim that it cannot be a cost issue because, given current pricing, at less than two cents per day per IP address the pricing structure is certainly sustainable by anyone and thus fair given what we know about the market. Yes, if you have more addresses your cost per address will be even lower. Economies of scale and all that. What you seemingly want to do is to drive your own cost down at the expense of others. Which is far from fair.
Kaj (who doesn't have 11872 addresses)
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------
*From:* Jean Salim <jean@bsmart-isp.net> *Sent:* Saturday, May 31, 2025 3:17 PM *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
And by the way, for those that say it has to be a flat fee because of taxes in the Netherlands or whatever. Currently there's a fee per ASN, so the LIRs pay 50 EUR ASN which isn't a flat fee.
A tiered model is possible and the right thing to do (again, everyone other than RIPE does it)
Only objectors are people like Gert that manage 11872 IPv4 and want to keep paying the same fees as someone that hold 256 IPs
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:45 Jean Salim, <jean@bsmart-isp.net> wrote:
That's not true, last time you were afraid of even putting a tiered model on the ballot while the vast majority of LIRs (which are very small LIRs) wanted to have an option to vote on a tiered model, but you didn't even have the guts to put it to vote.
On Sat, 31 May 2025, 13:41 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
We missed you Gert, I was surprised you disappeared as you're always the one to mislead the conversation away from charging scheme. I would like yo hear your proposal on an alternative charging scheme that more fair to small LIRs. I myself, as pointed out before, prefer the ARIN model.
"1 LIR, 1 vote, 1 fee for the membership" seems to be the one where most LIRs can actually *agree* on.
Every charging scheme will be unfair to some - we had categories, and that was unfair to some, we had flat fees, and those are unfair to some, and even if we introduce fee-by-/24, it will be unfair to some.
Even if we totally ignore IPv4, there will still be people that say "someone with a larger yearly budget should pay more", and "non-profit members should be free!", and maybe they are right. But if we go there, some people will have to pay more than they did the year before, and they will find this unfair.
Conclusions left as homework to the reader.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen+14?entry=gmail&source=g> Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279