On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
(and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip space for third parties and charge them for the service. the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, not for RIPE to steal their customers ;) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:
Hello, can someone from RIPE NCC provide calculation similat to current charging scheme (expected numbers of LIR members per category) and number of affected LIRs with the change. I expect these numbers already exists in RIPE NCC and these was used for this proposal - there must be some source data for selecting member category based on IPv4 callocations size in presented document. And these data should be presented together with this proposar.
I'm supporting this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation, but personally I feel that IPv4 allocations per category should be changed. There's disproportion between number of addresses and category - organisations holding for example one milion addresses will pay only double price, compared to organizations holding 65 thousand addresses, even is holding much more of resourcess. In terms of fairness - large resource holders are favorized opposed to small ones. I think, allocations per category should be considered to be more fair (that's means up to /22 in XXS, /21 in XS, /20-/16 in S, /15-/12 in L category... for example). My current feeling from presented model is, that many currently small LIRs will fall to medium category, just due to this change. And, current minimal allocation for LIR is /21 [*ripe509, section 5.1] - that means, every new LIR will be automatically in small category (and new LIRs will pay more then) - and that's wrong in my eyes.
Also, current model of 50EUR per independent resource is quite clear I think it can remain in the new charging scheme. At least, proposed model two, where PI are charged I'm supporting. There should be some regulation represented by additional "fee" for PI resources, as these are sometimes misused by organisations expected to be a LIR (and there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space as their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay for the resource in RIPE).
With regards, Daniel
On 08/01/2011 05:17 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on 2 November 2011.
The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models before deciding on a final version to present at the GM.
The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' features and differences, are presented at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-new...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by sending an email directly to agm@ripe.net.
After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it will present to the membership at the GM.
If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the members-discuss@ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can be found online at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-lis...
We look forward to hearing your comments.
Regards,
Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.