A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Well, it seems to start again, the discussion on the fees. We have not heard too much from Nigels taskforce team that is supposed to propose some new ideas, therefore i decided to write one. I personally wonder when we will be charged based on using IPv6. Most LIRs use a /32 and some use multiple /32, since we all agree that IPv4 is running out, should we start to look into the future and not into the past? (how do we charge new lirs when v4 has run out)... If you want to change the charging scheme, the time to include ipv6 is probably now. To save you all from difficult schemes, if you have a lot of IPv4 or if you have a little because you started later, all together a /32 v6 and a random amount of IPv4 will not have a huge percentage difference in IP:s compared to your /32. After all most who want to change the charging scheme are after charging by ip, per ip, or in percentage... So my basic idea is to develope a charging scheme that is based on IPv6, and not on IPv4. After all a currently "small" or "extra small" LIR gets a /32 as well, so the total amount of IP:s in the end doesn't differ that much in percentage. So a basic fee for the basic v6 space (a /32)(always, the same for everyone), a little variable addition for the old IPv4 space , and a a little addition for every(?) multiple /32. Cheers, Ray On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, KOSMOZZ - Info wrote:
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:26:05 +0000 From: KOSMOZZ - Info <info@kosmozz.be> To: Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com>, "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Lu,
I was thinking the same. Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may?be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used?
I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters.
Kind regards,
Filip Herman
filip@kosmozz.be
KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be)
Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Colleagues:
Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4)
The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well.
So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C)
So make the format simple:
C=(L/R*100%)*TN
Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions.
How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
-- ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Senior System Specialist Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A raymond.jetten@elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************
Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP's have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com<http://www.3c1b.com/> info@3c1b.com<mailto:info@3c1b.com> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Check this out from APNIC, they are long time ago to base on the ip resources for membership fee calculation, for your reference. http://submit.apnic.net/cgi-bin/feecalc.pl APNIC Annual Membership Fees Calculator Use this tool as a guide to estimate APNIC fees based on a particular resource holding. Enter the amount of IPv4 and IPv6 resources in the relevant fields using 'slash notation'. Top of Form IPv4 eg. /23 + /24 IPv6 eg. /30 + /34 (maximum /56). Bottom of Form IPv4 and IPv6 calculations are done separately. The fee charged is the greater of the two results. Your membership renewal invoices will be calculated<http://www.apnic.net/fees> based on your resource holdings assessed as at the date of your membership anniversary. * Applies to members only * Estimated fees are based on the higher of IPv4 or IPv6 fees * Address holdings include current and historical resources * Australian organizations are required to pay GST (Goods and Services Tax) on all APNIC fees Best regards, Terry Choy Planning & Development | Internet & Private Networks | Telstra International Group Direct: +852 2983 3025 Email: terry.choy@team.telstra.com<mailto:terry.choy@team.telstra.com> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:57 PM To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP's have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [cid:image001.jpg@01CCEB43.30AC0DA0] 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com<http://www.3c1b.com/> info@3c1b.com<mailto:info@3c1b.com> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On 14 feb 2012, at 11:05, CHOY, Terry KH wrote:
Check this out from APNIC, they are long time ago to base on the ip resources for membership fee calculation, for your reference.
And they also have the amount of votes proportional to the resources used... Best regards, - kurtis - --- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO kurtis@netnod.se, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00 Franzéngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden
Hello Dears, I totally Agree with ULF , and I suggest to charge a very high fees for the IPv4 subnets that's not utilizing ( let us say 50% or more) . This will help Ripe to get back unused subnets. BR, Aladdin Hakim Data Network Manager [cid:image002.jpg@01CCEB12.5DB69FD0] P.O. Box 4850 Amman 11953 Jordan Al Madina Al Munawara St., Jad Centre, 2nd Floor Tel: +962 6 5777733 Fax: +962 6 5777744 ( New) Cell: +962 7 88 06 00 69 Email: ahakim@damamax.jo<mailto:nalbakri@damamax.jo> www.damamax.jo<http://www.damamax.jo> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:57 AM To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP's have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [cid:image001.jpg@01CCEB12.31691250] 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com<http://www.3c1b.com/> info@3c1b.com<mailto:info@3c1b.com> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ________________________________ This email is from DAMAMAX Jordan. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please contact DAMAMAX Jordan on +962 6 5777733 quoting the name of the sender and the email address to which it has been sent and then delete it. Please note that neither DAMAMAX jordan nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.
I totally Agree with ULF , and I suggest to charge a very high fees for the IPv4 subnets that’s not utilizing ( let us say 50% or more) . This will help Ripe to get back unused subnets.
How are you going to check utilization? I think that market can regulate this questions. If annual payments will be bigger for big networks - company which is not using IPs will return it back or sale to another company ( it will be great enable this option ). -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001365] в теме письма. -- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 URL: [1]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: [2]http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: [3]http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS 14.02.2012 14:26 - Aladdin Hakim написал(а): Hello Dears, BR, Aladdin Hakim Data Network Manager P.O. Box 4850 Amman 11953 Jordan Al Madina Al Munawara St., Jad Centre, 2nd Floor Tel: +962 6 5777733 Fax: +962 6 5777744 ( New) Cell: +962 7 88 06 00 69 Email: [4]ahakim@damamax.jo [5]www.damamax.jo From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:57 AM To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 [6]http://www.3c1b.com [7]info@3c1b.com From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at [8] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.” The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: [9]members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [10][mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; [11]members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman [12]filip@kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- [13]http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium ([14]http://www.ispa.be) Van: [15]members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [16][mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: [17]members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. This email is from DAMAMAX Jordan. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please contact DAMAMAX Jordan on +962 6 5777733 quoting the name of the sender and the email address to which it has been sent and then delete it. Please note that neither DAMAMAX jordan nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. [1] http://www.InstantSSL.su/ [2] http://verisign.su/ [3] http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ [4] mailto:nalbakri@damamax.jo [5] http://www.damamax.jo [6] http://www.3c1b.com/ [7] mailto:info@3c1b.com [8] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... [9] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [10] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] [11] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net [12] mailto:filip@kosmozz.be [13] http://www.kosmozz.be/ [14] http://www.ispa.be/ [15] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [16] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] [17] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net
Hi All, IMHO, Smaller ISP's can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps - we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 - once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the 'New Internet' which it is. New networks should start on IPV6 - this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. Regards Ben From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP's have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com<http://www.3c1b.com/> info@3c1b.com<mailto:info@3c1b.com> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма. -- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 URL: [1]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: [2]http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: [3]http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а): Hi All, IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is. New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. Regards Ben From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 [4]http://www.3c1b.com [5]info@3c1b.com From: [6]members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [7][mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: [8]members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at [9] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.” The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: [10]members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [11][mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; [12]members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman [13]filip@kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- [14]http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium ([15]http://www.ispa.be) Van: [16]members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [17][mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: [18]members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. [1] http://www.InstantSSL.su/ [2] http://verisign.su/ [3] http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ [4] http://www.3c1b.com/ [5] mailto:info@3c1b.com [6] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [7] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] [8] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net [9] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... [10] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [11] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] [12] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net [13] mailto:filip@kosmozz.be [14] http://www.kosmozz.be/ [15] http://www.ispa.be/ [16] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [17] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] [18] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net
participants (10)
-
Aladdin Hakim -
Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor -
Cenk Keylan -
CHOY, Terry KH -
KOSMOZZ - Info -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
lir＠elisa.fi -
Lu Heng -
Ulf Kieber