Response to queries on Charging Scheme Models
Dear colleagues, Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented. In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs. It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs. Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve. The service fees mentioned are based on: - The current expense forecast for 2012 - The current membership growth forecast - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve) Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow. Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1. We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly. Kind regards, Jochem de Ruig Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
Jochem, Thank you for your added comments. Can you comment on two items: - The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change? - With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect? Regards, Frank On 02 Aug 2011, at 16:37, Jochem de Ruig wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented.
In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs.
It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs.
Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve.
The service fees mentioned are based on: - The current expense forecast for 2012 - The current membership growth forecast - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve)
Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow.
Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1.
We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly.
Kind regards,
Jochem de Ruig Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
why even take the trouble to adjust the billing model to obsolete crap like ipv4 address blocks anyway... its not worth the trouble anymore. if we come up with a new billing structure, primarily based on ipv4 -now- we are going to have to change it AGAIN once nobody gives a flying fuck about v4 anymore (anytime soon now :P think its best to just leave it as it is for a few months-years and change it AFTER ipv6 only networks are the de-facto standard. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Frank Louwers wrote:
Jochem,
Thank you for your added comments. Can you comment on two items:
- The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change?
- With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect?
Regards,
Frank
On 02 Aug 2011, at 16:37, Jochem de Ruig wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented.
In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs.
It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs.
Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve.
The service fees mentioned are based on: - The current expense forecast for 2012 - The current membership growth forecast - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve)
Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow.
Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1.
We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly.
Kind regards,
Jochem de Ruig Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Frank and Sascha, Thank you for your comments. Below my response.
The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change?
* Yes this will change with the final /8 policy . As soon as RIPE NCC reaches the final /8, the (minimum and maximum) allocation size will be a /22. New LIRs can only get a /22.
With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect?
* It is a side effect and not a purpose. The XXS category is created for several reasons: - to facilitate existing Direct Assignment Users, with small assignments that currently have a direct contract with the RIPE NCC, to become members - to provide the option for small End Users that do not have a sponsoring LIR or do not want a sponsoring LIR, to become members for a reasonable fee - towards the future for Legacy Resource holders with small allocations/assignments i.e. /24 (class C) to become members for a reasonable fee
Do sponsored ASN count into the category? (eg, does a LIR with 1x /22 PA allocation but sponsoring 5 ASN now fall into 'Large'?
* Yes sponsored ASNs count into the category. For an LIR to be in the Large category they should at least have 17 or more ASNs registered with their account (own infrastructure and sponsored ASNs) Regards, Jochem On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Frank Louwers wrote:
Jochem,
Thank you for your added comments. Can you comment on two items:
- The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change?
- With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect?
Regards,
Frank
On 02 Aug 2011, at 16:37, Jochem de Ruig wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented.
In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs.
It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs.
Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve.
The service fees mentioned are based on: - The current expense forecast for 2012 - The current membership growth forecast - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve)
Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow.
Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1.
We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly.
Kind regards,
Jochem de Ruig Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
Hi Jochem, On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 04:37:00PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote:
In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs. It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs.
Thank you for the clarifications. I have another question: Do sponsored ASN count into the category? (eg, does a LIR with 1x /22 PA allocation but sponsoring 5 ASN now fall into 'Large'? If so, this would, very much, discriminate against small LIRs who hold few resources themselves but sponsor for end users. Overall, my preference would be for a "low cost airline" charging model with charges for each resource as required by the LIR. This might even be an incentive for LIRs to return unused resources in order to cut their bill. I realise that such a system would probably make forecasting harder for the NCC. rgds, Sascha Luck
participants (4)
-
Frank Louwers -
Jochem de Ruig -
Sascha Luck -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis