Hello everyone, unfortunately, the discussion here in Phase 2 reflects the experiences and contributions from Phase 1 and shows that we are all engaged in a sham discussion here. RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed. As many members clearly pointed out in Phase 1, this inevitably leads to unfair pricing and thus unfair cost distribution. According to the class-based Charging scheme models presented, users with small IP resources would have to pay up to 100 times more per IP address per year than users with large IP resources. I personally consider the argument that the latter users would otherwise pay too much and might switch RIRs to be highly questionable, as the associated effort/costs and also the question of whether other RIRs could even provide replacements for these resources suggest that these users would not switch. The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters. It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach. In my opinion, at least, a fair pricing model can never be achieved with the models currently being presented. Kind regards Peter Thiele -- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avast.com
On 10/03/2026 13:02:00, thiele@holomua.de wrote:
RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed.
"you are welcome to argue the niceties of a scheme that has been repeatedly dismissed"
The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters.
This is why we vote for the fixed fee each time, if the offered variable rates suited the higher number of smaller members then they would have been accepted previously.
It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach.
I don’t think linear will ever be offered and really what is the point. V4 is done, trying to rinse those with laods may have a feel good factor but not for very long. Assuming V6 does get there, and really the only reason it hasn’t is us the industry we can’t blame anyone else, then we will be back to a small range of allocaiton sizes to try and bodge into a category model, so really back to flat rate. brandon
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. 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 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! 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. I believe the working group should be disbanded. Its work is pointless; we've already voted against such payment options twice. A new group should be created, and discussion of linear models should be mandatory. 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! ----------------------------- Dmitry Serbulov -----------------------------
On 10/03/2026 13:02:00, thiele@holomua.de wrote:
RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed.
"you are welcome to argue the niceties of a scheme that has been repeatedly dismissed"
The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters.
This is why we vote for the fixed fee each time, if the offered variable rates suited the higher number of smaller members then they would have been accepted previously.
It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach.
I don’t think linear will ever be offered and really what is the point.
V4 is done, trying to rinse those with laods may have a feel good factor but not for very long. Assuming V6 does get there, and really the only reason it hasn’t is us the industry we can’t blame anyone else, then we will be back to a small range of allocaiton sizes to try and bodge into a category model, so really back to flat rate.
brandon
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
-----------------------------
On 10/03/2026 23:36:34, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
I completely disagree with you.
Good, I know that I am too accepting of the imposed futilty of arguing for a linear scheme. For the reasons you highlight I don’t see it happening.
You claim IPv4 is closed.
Yes, they don’t make it any more so people can fight over the scraps or move on.
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?
It has halved since that peak and seems to still be declining as more reduce their use and sell off, and parts for old cars still sell even though new cars are for sale, some will drive the old car until it disintegrates.
The schemes proposed by the working group not only create inequality among NCC participants
Agreed, hence we’ve voted for the fixed fee so far. brandon
Hi, On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 02:36:34AM +0300, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
The MAJORITY of those participating in this discussion here have spoken about linear models!
I see a very small minority that keeps repeating this over and over. The MAJORITY seems to be busy running their daily jobs. (FTR, I think "one fee fits all" is workable, and "some amount of category based" can be workable, but "linear by IP address" is not - though I can see that small LIRs would be happy with this) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
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%. [cid:ed13ca20-9f8b-4188-97ac-624dfb8629c9@winzone.noris.de] (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 -- [cid:logo_f550b0a9-7459-42ec-bee7-5913d5852898.png] Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de<mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
+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<mailto: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%. [cid:image001.png@01DCB156.B6805600] (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 -- [PDF Creator] Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de<mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
Hello, I apologize to everyone; what we are discussing here seems absurd to me. Undoubtedly it is the fault of us, the small LIRs, that we do not participate in the voting where the question of how much we should pay is decided. However, the main issue is not being addressed — that IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans, and those who obtained them in this way now pay the same as small LIRs, who must purchase IP addresses at high prices. And what does RIPE propose? That they should also pay for a place on the waiting list. I have a different proposal: immediately stop all inter-RIR transfers initiate a complete audit of IP usage in accordance with addressing plans after the audit, return all IPs used in violation of addressing plans (which includes at least all those being sold at various auctions) to the free pool Where are the days when Arne Kiessling was almost shutting down LIRs? When every minor issue and every suspicion of non-compliance was examined? I personally experienced such an audit at one of my former employers. Today nobody cares, and some “CEO of I-don’t-know-what” writes here that he trusts the members. Sure. We have allowed our own registry to be looted. And now small LIRs are supposed to pay the same as large ones. I call on all small LIRs: let us take RIPE back into our own hands, push for votes not only on payment issues but also on a complete audit, and make it the first registry that will have IP addresses again — because it will reclaim them from those who falsified addressing plans in the past on an industrial scale and are now making millions from it. Michal ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Lutz Donnerhacke" <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> Komu "'members-discuss@ripe.net'" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Datum 11.03.2026 14:10:47 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
+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
--
PDF Creator
Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration
noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de
Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
You can't turn back time. Realistically, I mean. All this silly talk, no offense, of looting and industrial scale falsifying, etc - please. You don't need to be on a waiting list. I get 10+ emails weekly from various brokers offering, unsolicited, blocks of addresses. I can forward some of them to you if you want. The same offer is available to anyone else, too. Kaj ________________________________ From: Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 17:23 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>; 'members-discuss@ripe.net' <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme Hello, I apologize to everyone; what we are discussing here seems absurd to me. Undoubtedly it is the fault of us, the small LIRs, that we do not participate in the voting where the question of how much we should pay is decided. However, the main issue is not being addressed — that IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans, and those who obtained them in this way now pay the same as small LIRs, who must purchase IP addresses at high prices. And what does RIPE propose? That they should also pay for a place on the waiting list. I have a different proposal: * immediately stop all inter-RIR transfers * initiate a complete audit of IP usage in accordance with addressing plans * after the audit, return all IPs used in violation of addressing plans (which includes at least all those being sold at various auctions) to the free pool Where are the days when Arne Kiessling was almost shutting down LIRs? When every minor issue and every suspicion of non-compliance was examined? I personally experienced such an audit at one of my former employers. Today nobody cares, and some “CEO of I-don’t-know-what” writes here that he trusts the members. Sure. We have allowed our own registry to be looted. And now small LIRs are supposed to pay the same as large ones. I call on all small LIRs: let us take RIPE back into our own hands, push for votes not only on payment issues but also on a complete audit, and make it the first registry that will have IP addresses again — because it will reclaim them from those who falsified addressing plans in the past on an industrial scale and are now making millions from it. Michal ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Lutz Donnerhacke" <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de<mailto:L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>> Komu "'members-discuss@ripe.net'" <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Datum 11.03.2026 14:10:47 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme +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<mailto: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%. [cid:image001.png@01DCB156.B6805600] (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 -- [PDF Creator] Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de<mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
Am Mittwoch, 11. März 2026, 16:23:18 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss:
initiate a complete audit of IP usage in accordance with addressing plans
after the audit, return all IPs used in violation of addressing plans (which includes at least all those being sold at various auctions) to the free pool Where are the days when Arne Kiessling was almost shutting down LIRs? When every minor issue and every suspicion of non-compliance was examined? I personally experienced such an audit at one of my former employers. +1
niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Dear RIPE NCC and community, First of all, Michal Krajčírovič, thank you Your answer, in my opinion, is one of the best on the list. Constructively and to the point. I will try to join in. All the issues that Michal Krajčírovič raised are relevant. But we are unlikely to be able to implement this in the short term. Therefore, given the budget deficit and rising costs (we will not dwell on the reasons), a compromise may be to raise the cost of autonomous systems to 75 euros per year in the near future. I ask the community to support Michal Krajčírovič's initiatives. These proposals can really solve some of the existing problems. 11.03.2026 17:23, Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss:
Hello,
I apologize to everyone; what we are discussing here seems absurd to me.
Undoubtedly it is the fault of us, the small LIRs, that we do not participate in the voting where the question of how much we should pay is decided.
However, the main issue is not being addressed — that IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans, and those who obtained them in this way now pay the same as small LIRs, who must purchase IP addresses at high prices.
And what does RIPE propose? That they should also pay for a place on the waiting list.
I have a different proposal:
*
immediately stop all inter-RIR transfers
*
initiate a complete audit of IP usage in accordance with addressing plans
*
after the audit, return all IPs used in violation of addressing plans (which includes at least all those being sold at various auctions) to the free pool
Where are the days when Arne Kiessling was almost shutting down LIRs? When every minor issue and every suspicion of non-compliance was examined? I personally experienced such an audit at one of my former employers.
Today nobody cares, and some “CEO of I-don’t-know-what” writes here that he trusts the members. Sure.
We have allowed our own registry to be looted. And now small LIRs are supposed to pay the same as large ones.
I call on all small LIRs: let us take RIPE back into our own hands, push for votes not only on payment issues but also on a complete audit, and make it the first registry that will have IP addresses again — because it will reclaim them from those who falsified addressing plans in the past on an industrial scale and are now making millions from it.
Michal
------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Lutz Donnerhacke" <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> Komu "'members-discuss@ripe.net'" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Datum 11.03.2026 14:10:47 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
+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 <mailto: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 <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
--
PDF Creator *Sebastian Wiesinger* *Senior Principal Network Architect* Service Integration
noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de <mailto:sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de>
Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at:https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
-- ---------------------- https://kyivlink.com https://t.me/kyivlink https://fb.com/kyivlink 044 332 9555 093 332 9555
Am Mittwoch, 11. März 2026, 14:10:47 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Lutz Donnerhacke:
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, …). just to mention: You should be aware that these cost profile in germany today is way (!) different from several/many countries within RIPE area.
Greetings from Armenia (similiar to several/many other RIPE area countries), where staff (median income here is 300 €), energy, taxes, rents and even hardware (they use much older / cheaper products) still are a fraction of that in germany. cheerioh, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi everyone! Some context: I'm a one-person LIR mentoring people who are ( interested in | excited about ) networking. To be clear, this is not a commercial undertaking, but a labor of love for the internet. Out of belief that being part of building and shaping the internet shouldn't be a financial decision, I provide resources at cost. In reality, most of the money comes from my own pocket – the majority of which goes into LIR fees! I am whole-heartedly in favor of adopting a category model (whether continuous or not). Of course, choosing the categories is a balancing act: Making it too steep, apart from possible negative tax implications, will cause the majority of RIPE's income be dependent on a few very large organizations (and make us in turn vulnerable to their demands).
On 11. Mar 2026, at 10:19, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote: The MAJORITY of those participating in this discussion here have spoken about linear models! Which is also why, apart from the great points Sebastian and others have brought up, I am decisively opposed to a linear model.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the current flat-fee model poses an undue challenge to smaller ISPs. I personally know several people in small businesses and organizations that would happily move to becoming a member if the barrier to entry wasn't as high as it is today. Even I personally have to make a difficult choice each year, on whether I want to stay a LIR or not. A decent compromise might be a using two curves, a steeper one up to the median resources per LIR, and one that quickly stagnates above that. All that said, perfect is the enemy of good. The current move toward a more equitable model is definitely a step in the right direction. Have a lovely rest of your week :) ~ ember
The "street price" seems to be around 19-21 USD/EUR per IPv4 address in lots of /24 based on unsolicited offers received. There is clearly customer traction at that rate. You probably get a discount if you buy more. Kaj ________________________________ From: sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 01:36 To: Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> Cc: thiele@holomua.de <thiele@holomua.de>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme 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. 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 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! 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. I believe the working group should be disbanded. Its work is pointless; we've already voted against such payment options twice. A new group should be created, and discussion of linear models should be mandatory. 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! ----------------------------- Dmitry Serbulov -----------------------------
On 10/03/2026 13:02:00, thiele@holomua.de wrote:
RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed.
"you are welcome to argue the niceties of a scheme that has been repeatedly dismissed"
The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters.
This is why we vote for the fixed fee each time, if the offered variable rates suited the higher number of smaller members then they would have been accepted previously.
It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach.
I don’t think linear will ever be offered and really what is the point.
V4 is done, trying to rinse those with laods may have a feel good factor but not for very long. Assuming V6 does get there, and really the only reason it hasn’t is us the industry we can’t blame anyone else, then we will be back to a small range of allocaiton sizes to try and bodge into a category model, so really back to flat rate.
brandon
To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Faccount-details&data=05%7C02%7C%7C1694a141e6b24a789c2208de7f4ebc35%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639088173332589874%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1dTV74q0G8WnHRPhPKSId2H6c8qllr3HMPZXbeggbzU%3D&reserved=0<https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription-options%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C1694a141e6b24a789c2208de7f4ebc35%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639088173332615078%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mozyd4915pM%2B9s2L8ZzRYt3SMlMZbWhvuJScTwk9z84%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/>
----------------------------- To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Faccount-details&data=05%7C02%7C%7C1694a141e6b24a789c2208de7f4ebc35%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639088173332638273%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Zdwqvj2Z3MwTi0ksHYCTBS5JvNXENuV0J1a%2Bx965rfw%3D&reserved=0<https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>. Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription-options%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C1694a141e6b24a789c2208de7f4ebc35%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639088173332659219%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lwDY8d6UeGP7TBhhHdFfoDwfER9XBPnVIQrtRUOsE9c%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/>
Am Dienstag, 10. März 2026, 16:02:56 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Brandon Butterworth:
V4 is done I hear this since decades now...
...but to be true - the reality out there (i experience) is still very far from that. The demand for IPv4 based services remains high. To these days IPv6 was not able to provide some real successor of IPv4 leading to significant numbers of network users / companies to drop IPv4 and only a few (mainly telcos) prefer IPv6 o IPv4 in their deployments. And the demand for IPv4 based services on the globe is still growing. I experience myself the discussions within large enterprises about inventing IPv6 in their networks (most only have a few services IPv6 ready to the outside) and all of them dropped it since today regularly because of "no benefit for us" (many older of them are LIR and many of them have much more IPv4 address space they will ever need/use). As others still mentioned here: the current RIPE charging models will further help to more service centralization with dying smaller sompanies / market diversity for different reasons. If IPv6 will ever success over IPv4, it will be very probably AFTER the market cleansing. RIPE then probably will be change into some "public" governmental entity or another pseudo NGO with very few big members.
This is why we vote for the fixed fee each time, if the offered variable rates suited the higher number of smaller members then they would have been accepted previously. hmm, i remember the last argument (in a discussion of the wschemes on one of the last RIPE XX) from some of the RIPE board against "pay for what you use" models was, that RIPE "fears" to confornt very large companies with much larger fees up to the millions per year while they have "more money and potent lawyers to fight against this per courts".
cheers, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi Peter,
According to the class-based Charging scheme models presented, users with small IP resources would have to pay up to 100 times more
Would you be so kind to define 'user'? Thank you. -- Best regards, Sergey
On 3/10/2026, at 18:32, thiele@holomua.de wrote:
Hello everyone,
unfortunately, the discussion here in Phase 2 reflects the experiences and contributions from Phase 1 and shows that we are all engaged in a sham discussion here.
RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed. As many members clearly pointed out in Phase 1, this inevitably leads to unfair pricing and thus unfair cost distribution.
According to the class-based Charging scheme models presented, users with small IP resources would have to pay up to 100 times more per IP address per year than users with large IP resources. I personally consider the argument that the latter users would otherwise pay too much and might switch RIRs to be highly questionable, as the associated effort/costs and also the question of whether other RIRs could even provide replacements for these resources suggest that these users would not switch. The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters.
It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach.
In my opinion, at least, a fair pricing model can never be achieved with the models currently being presented.
Kind regards
Peter Thiele
-- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avast.com To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
Hello members-discuss! As much as I wanted tired of linear payment schemes implemented no one else wanted. But what’s described in current proposal is nothing close. It’s 100% opposite and CATASTROPHE. First of all - there is strange “cap” on maximum which shifts whole scheme into small and medium LIRs paying 2-10x times more, and sometimes (eg active transfers) even more than huge members. Goal to shift expenses to be proportional to the size of member is not on horizon. This will do nothing, but force medium companies to abandon doing LIR or migrate to different region completely. So for now I only have one question - will there be option to vote for keeping existing model? It seems we have to keep either that or break everything and bring catastrophe. Good work team.
On 10 Mar 2026, at 16:16, thiele@holomua.de wrote:
Hello everyone,
unfortunately, the discussion here in Phase 2 reflects the experiences and contributions from Phase 1 and shows that we are all engaged in a sham discussion here.
RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed. As many members clearly pointed out in Phase 1, this inevitably leads to unfair pricing and thus unfair cost distribution.
According to the class-based Charging scheme models presented, users with small IP resources would have to pay up to 100 times more per IP address per year than users with large IP resources. I personally consider the argument that the latter users would otherwise pay too much and might switch RIRs to be highly questionable, as the associated effort/costs and also the question of whether other RIRs could even provide replacements for these resources suggest that these users would not switch. The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters.
It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach.
In my opinion, at least, a fair pricing model can never be achieved with the models currently being presented.
Kind regards
Peter Thiele
-- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avast.com To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
I think we use different definitions of medium-sized companies. Medium sized companies, as defined by the European Commission[1], are entities with annual revenue not exceeding 50 MEUR or having a balance sheet 43 MEUR or less. They won't do anything of the sort you suggest. FWIW, even small companies - annual revenue not exceeding or alternatively balance sheet of 10 MEUR or less - won't mind. Not sure about micro-enterprises - definition is annual revenue or balance sheet not exceeding 2 MEUR - but I can guess whether they care or not if they are above the 50th percentile in that category. Kaj [1] Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC ________________________________ From: Mihail Fedorov via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 20:18 Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme Hello members-discuss! As much as I wanted tired of linear payment schemes implemented no one else wanted. But what’s described in current proposal is nothing close. It’s 100% opposite and CATASTROPHE. First of all - there is strange “cap” on maximum which shifts whole scheme into small and medium LIRs paying 2-10x times more, and sometimes (eg active transfers) even more than huge members. Goal to shift expenses to be proportional to the size of member is not on horizon. This will do nothing, but force medium companies to abandon doing LIR or migrate to different region completely. So for now I only have one question - will there be option to vote for keeping existing model? It seems we have to keep either that or break everything and bring catastrophe. Good work team.
On 10 Mar 2026, at 16:16, thiele@holomua.de wrote:
Hello everyone,
unfortunately, the discussion here in Phase 2 reflects the experiences and contributions from Phase 1 and shows that we are all engaged in a sham discussion here.
RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed. As many members clearly pointed out in Phase 1, this inevitably leads to unfair pricing and thus unfair cost distribution.
According to the class-based Charging scheme models presented, users with small IP resources would have to pay up to 100 times more per IP address per year than users with large IP resources. I personally consider the argument that the latter users would otherwise pay too much and might switch RIRs to be highly questionable, as the associated effort/costs and also the question of whether other RIRs could even provide replacements for these resources suggest that these users would not switch. The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters.
It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach.
In my opinion, at least, a fair pricing model can never be achieved with the models currently being presented.
Kind regards
Peter Thiele
-- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3bb832b12406403ff31708de7f4deb92%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639088169826333569%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VHPmDKz4AqA7ZL2%2BnMPwGlzBpIxQAwqlZUrTEjSJ29A%3D&reserved=0<http://www.avast.com/> To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Faccount-details&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3bb832b12406403ff31708de7f4deb92%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639088169826379258%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HdQsEJ9xmb29hHobKF9hBwEQnW5NX9o9G1tCgiVWubY%3D&reserved=0<https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription-options%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3bb832b12406403ff31708de7f4deb92%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639088169826429050%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Br7K6GFJbmw8tPR5LfJk7BHDO6Te56kfZPhz9h8SXJI%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/> To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmy.ripe.net%2F%23%2Faccount-details&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3bb832b12406403ff31708de7f4deb92%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639088169826477557%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=A6%2FJ4rmG983ScQHzk2qICB5l6XcYabrxv1FMNLQXu%2BM%3D&reserved=0<https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details>.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription. Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fs%2Fmembers-discuss-subscription-options%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3bb832b12406403ff31708de7f4deb92%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C639088169826519509%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=43o%2BkHKPWB6N2aZBw87jMUqTitHG65C1wmTgRkqgMW0%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/>
Hi, All! Unfortunately, I completely agree with it. This is not a discussion, but an imitation of one. It is a shame for the organization. Linear models should also be considered. They have been mentioned many times. However, this issue is simply ignored. Such behavior deserves a separate discussion at the meeting! ----------------------------- Dmitry Serbulov. -----------------------------
Hello everyone,
unfortunately, the discussion here in Phase 2 reflects the experiences and contributions from Phase 1 and shows that we are all engaged in a sham discussion here.
RIPE NCC set conditions for the working group in advance that were intended to prevent any discussion of a pricing model based linearly on the amount of RIPE resources (IPs, etc.) used. As a result, only the price limits of models and various ancillary costs can now be discussed. As many members clearly pointed out in Phase 1, this inevitably leads to unfair pricing and thus unfair cost distribution.
According to the class-based Charging scheme models presented, users with small IP resources would have to pay up to 100 times more per IP address per year than users with large IP resources. I personally consider the argument that the latter users would otherwise pay too much and might switch RIRs to be highly questionable, as the associated effort/costs and also the question of whether other RIRs could even provide replacements for these resources suggest that these users would not switch. The models currently presented disadvantage all small and medium-sized users and favor the large early adopters.
It is regrettable that the entire discussion on the pricing model could not/was not allowed to be conducted in an open-ended manner, taking into account another possible model with a linear resource-dependent cost approach.
In my opinion, at least, a fair pricing model can never be achieved with the models currently being presented.
Kind regards
Peter Thiele
-- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft. www.avast.com To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
-----------------------------
participants (13)
-
Brandon Butterworth -
ember -
Gert Doering -
Kaj Niemi -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Michal Krajčírovič -
Mihail Fedorov -
Niels Dettenbach -
Oleg Zinkov -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Sergey Myasoedov -
thiele＠holomua.de