New pricing proposal - it goes out of control
Hello Everyone, I'm analyzing the new charging scheme proposed by RIPE NCC. Adopt the new scheme like that KILL every small hosting provider include us. I don't think that's a good idea for RIPE NCC to kill a lot of small provider. It kill net neutrality, and i think a lot of small isp call IANA to sanction the RIPE board for that. In practice, you ask 8000€ / year because a provider has one ASN ? It's mostly mandatory for all members to own at least one. Why not doing some in between prupose: More "reasonable" base membership. Small ISP doesn't have to pay mush. Let imagine a resource quantity category. IPv6 only => category 1 < 10 000 IPv4 => category 2 50 000 IPv4 => .... ... - Extra fee for every PI of 50€ Like that, big isp who can pay for the RIPE work because they extract high value from them. Also people who sponsor a lot of PI (who generate a lot of work for RIPE resource analyst) pay for the employment time. As a reminder, ARIN use this model. Best regards, Sarah
Hi Guys, let`s keep it the same! As long as new LIR`s are created the old price scheme seems to be viable. Best regards, Claudiu Foleanu March 8, 2023 2:10 PM, "Servperso via members-discuss" <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I'm analyzing the new charging scheme proposed by RIPE NCC.
Adopt the new scheme like that KILL every small hosting provider include us. I don't think that's a good idea for RIPE NCC to kill a lot of small provider.
It kill net neutrality, and i think a lot of small isp call IANA to sanction the RIPE board for that.
In practice, you ask 8000€ / year because a provider has one ASN ? It's mostly mandatory for all members to own at least one.
Why not doing some in between prupose:
More "reasonable" base membership. Small ISP doesn't have to pay mush. Let imagine a resource quantity category.
IPv6 only => category 1
< 10 000 IPv4 => category 2
50 000 IPv4 => ....
...
- Extra fee for every PI of 50€
Like that, big isp who can pay for the RIPE work because they extract high value from them.
Also people who sponsor a lot of PI (who generate a lot of work for RIPE resource analyst) pay for the employment time.
As a reminder, ARIN use this model.
Best regards,
Sarah
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/claudiu.foleanu%40tho...
Hi ALL! Sorry, it can be duplicated, but it is need to say again. Any scheme with categories based on boundaries on the number of resources (IP) will be unfair! It will be dishonest, because someone has 10,000, another has 12,000, and someone has 1,000,000. You never can find right limits. In the free market, we now pay price for 1 IP and not for a "category". There are only ONE fairway - is to make payments for the REAL number of used resources (AS and subnets /24). All other ways is the expense of someone for other. You will never come up with an honest scheme with boundaries categories. But we can enter categories with coefficients for some kind of LIRs. For example 0.3 for educational institutions. To discuss new scheme and the price of AS and /24 subnet, at first, directors of RIPE NCC must give us statistics, about LIRs, they kind and numder AS and /24 subnets it gets. The payment must have two parts. One - static, for all (administrative part). Another - dynamic, for used resources (land tax). ---------------------- Sebulov Dmitriy
Hello everybody, In my opinion, neither option 1 nor option 2 is a good choice. The annual contribution is named "service fee" and should reflect the costs, needed to deliver the service to the members of this NP-Organization. It should not be misused for policy reasons (e.g. make returning of address space attractive) or for the subvention of rather small or rather big members. Each member should pay for the costs, he is responsible for, the fee should not be a membership tax for the money earned by his LIRs. Here I see two components: 1) Usage independent Basic costs. That are costs for administration, for the hosting, operating and maintaining of all services like the RIPE Database, RPKI, DNS , for the Meetings and so on. These costs should be equally shared by all members. I agree with all other previous writers who requestet an economical use of our fees: It should not be the goal to distribute the additional costs. It should be the goal to minimize the costs for high end projects or sponsoring. 2) Member dependent operating expenses Of course, members with more or bigger Ressource Allocations are represented more in the group of Power-Users than other. But there is no functional correlation between the allocated Ressources and the real needed effort. We have also to consider: - The number of Tickets - Number and Frequency of Assignements - Complexity of the Registry-Check - Number of Route Objects - staff stability (quality and demands for courses) - Certification - many other things... ... and of course special Services like the transfer of Ressources. My Conclusion: A really fair solution will be extremly complex. At least, we need a good compromise between fairness and complexibility. Andreas
I don't see an option in the calculator where you will charged 8000 if you own only 1 ASN unless you have large amount of IPv4 and IPv6. You should retry using calculator. On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 15:21, Hank Nussbacher<hank@interall.co.il> wrote: On 07/03/2023 18:57, Servperso via members-discuss wrote:
Hello Everyone,
In practice, you ask 8000€ / year because a provider has one ASN ? It's mostly mandatory for all members to own at least one.
Can you explain how you arrived at 8000E? Thanks, Hank _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/eisina%40yahoo.com
If ARIN was “perfect” making references to their model might hold water, but they are far from that. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Servperso via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:10 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] New pricing proposal - it goes out of control [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hello Everyone, I'm analyzing the new charging scheme proposed by RIPE NCC. Adopt the new scheme like that KILL every small hosting provider include us. I don't think that's a good idea for RIPE NCC to kill a lot of small provider. It kill net neutrality, and i think a lot of small isp call IANA to sanction the RIPE board for that. In practice, you ask 8000€ / year because a provider has one ASN ? It's mostly mandatory for all members to own at least one. Why not doing some in between prupose: More "reasonable" base membership. Small ISP doesn't have to pay mush. Let imagine a resource quantity category. IPv6 only => category 1 < 10 000 IPv4 => category 2 50 000 IPv4 => .... ... - Extra fee for every PI of 50€ Like that, big isp who can pay for the RIPE work because they extract high value from them. Also people who sponsor a lot of PI (who generate a lot of work for RIPE resource analyst) pay for the employment time. As a reminder, ARIN use this model. Best regards, Sarah _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michele%40blacknight....
Not to mention that ARIN ran out of IP addresses in 2015. They failed to preserve their resources long before any other region. It's not in the interest of RIPE NCC to follow that kind of logic. I see other members suggesting to not over complicate things and just charge per /24. That could result in the pool being replenished with recycled IP blocks, as I imagine many organizations won't want to continue to pay for IPs they will never use. Right now there's no incentive to recycle unused IP blocks and that has to change. Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd On 09/03/2023 10:00, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote:
If ARIN was “perfect” making references to their model might hold water, but they are far from that.
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
From: members-discuss [<members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net) on behalf of Servperso via members-discuss [<members-discuss@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:10 To: members-discuss@ripe.net [<members-discuss@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) Subject: [members-discuss] New pricing proposal - it goes out of control
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
Hello Everyone,
I'm analyzing the new charging scheme proposed by RIPE NCC.
Adopt the new scheme like that KILL every small hosting provider include us. I don't think that's a good idea for RIPE NCC to kill a lot of small provider.
It kill net neutrality, and i think a lot of small isp call IANA to sanction the RIPE board for that.
In practice, you ask 8000€ / year because a provider has one ASN ? It's mostly mandatory for all members to own at least one.
Why not doing some in between prupose:
More "reasonable" base membership. Small ISP doesn't have to pay mush. Let imagine a resource quantity category.
IPv6 only => category 1
< 10 000 IPv4 => category 2
50 000 IPv4 => ....
...
- Extra fee for every PI of 50€
Like that, big isp who can pay for the RIPE work because they extract high value from them.
Also people who sponsor a lot of PI (who generate a lot of work for RIPE resource analyst) pay for the employment time.
As a reminder, ARIN use this model.
Best regards,
Sarah
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michele%40blacknight....
Can you explain the rationale on returning addresses to RIPE NCC rather than selling them onward? There is a market for this thing which exists in limited amounts, you know. 😊 Kaj From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Josh Jameson Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 16:08 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New pricing proposal - it goes out of control Not to mention that ARIN ran out of IP addresses in 2015. They failed to preserve their resources long before any other region. It's not in the interest of RIPE NCC to follow that kind of logic. I see other members suggesting to not over complicate things and just charge per /24. That could result in the pool being replenished with recycled IP blocks, as I imagine many organizations won't want to continue to pay for IPs they will never use. Right now there's no incentive to recycle unused IP blocks and that has to change. Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd On 09/03/2023 10:00, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote: If ARIN was “perfect” making references to their model might hold water, but they are far from that. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacknight.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1508b49fea1c43d7724108db20b6e078%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139742037649653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YnOGeWzeakVuyehUXxXe4Ph9TobkY0xC%2BXrTuf5IIiE%3D&reserved=0> https://blacknight.blog/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblacknight.blog%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1508b49fea1c43d7724108db20b6e078%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139742037649653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=apoQBpfB8pBp44FcplTJqKZZKmG9OImJLtwhev6cDNU%3D&reserved=0> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmichele.blog%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1508b49fea1c43d7724108db20b6e078%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139742037649653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1toEZxwdGCW4mQ6WX1ZCb%2BFeVWGrTo%2BO7Y16iOfq3YY%3D&reserved=0> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.hosting%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1508b49fea1c43d7724108db20b6e078%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139742037649653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6LQSn%2B7USwGr94tYQ%2FgPG1n35%2FpS6KOFLx7wrlE0Gis%3D&reserved=0> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net><mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Servperso via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net><mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:10 To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net><mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] New pricing proposal - it goes out of control [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hello Everyone, I'm analyzing the new charging scheme proposed by RIPE NCC. Adopt the new scheme like that KILL every small hosting provider include us. I don't think that's a good idea for RIPE NCC to kill a lot of small provider. It kill net neutrality, and i think a lot of small isp call IANA to sanction the RIPE board for that. In practice, you ask 8000€ / year because a provider has one ASN ? It's mostly mandatory for all members to own at least one. Why not doing some in between prupose: More "reasonable" base membership. Small ISP doesn't have to pay mush. Let imagine a resource quantity category. IPv6 only => category 1 < 10 000 IPv4 => category 2 50 000 IPv4 => .... ... - Extra fee for every PI of 50€ Like that, big isp who can pay for the RIPE work because they extract high value from them. Also people who sponsor a lot of PI (who generate a lot of work for RIPE resource analyst) pay for the employment time. As a reminder, ARIN use this model. Best regards, Sarah _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1508b49fea1c43d7724108db20b6e078%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139742037649653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VMXOOWxh1e%2B7qYQj5y9o5rxhw5s4B9aTInPvAvBeWgc%3D&reserved=0> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michele%40blacknight.com<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fmichele%2540blacknight.com&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1508b49fea1c43d7724108db20b6e078%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139742037649653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1GXH0GCgQyqcFGNGlk%2F9YXqp2V8hq5qCXXiXBDA8%2FsU%3D&reserved=0>
The rationale is something called giving an equal opportunity to everyone. The same way you obtained IP addresses from IP addresses from RIPE - other people and organizations should be able to do the same. 1. There are many more LIRs with smaller allocations that would benefit from the new proposed pricing model two. 2. RIPE NCC would benefit from pricing model two because it encourages IP address recycling. More LIRs in the future. 3. Our members benefit by increasing the availability of IPv4. This is a limited resource of the internet. Nobody should be trying to control it as a commodity. Like land, it should be taxed to prevent hoarding and create a healthy economy based on fair usage and work to pay those taxes. There are orgs in RIPE that have tens of thousands of IPs they don't use and they don't pay for them. They don't have any interest in selling them either. I believe that just because an org became a member many years ago and got bucket loads of IPs for very little justification, doesn't mean they should be entitled to them in the future for no extra cost. As I've already stated many times, this is not going to be a popular opinion to any member with a large allocation of IP addresses, but to be frank, I don't care if I offend them - this is my opinion and a small org's voice can be heard on RIPE as much as a large org. Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd On 09/03/2023 16:05, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Can you explain the rationale on returning addresses to RIPE NCC rather than selling them onward? There is a market for this thing which exists in limited amounts, you know. 😊
Kaj
From: members-discuss [<members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net) On Behalf Of Josh Jameson Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 16:08 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New pricing proposal - it goes out of control
Not to mention that ARIN ran out of IP addresses in 2015. They failed to preserve their resources long before any other region. It's not in the interest of RIPE NCC to follow that kind of logic.
I see other members suggesting to not over complicate things and just charge per /24. That could result in the pool being replenished with recycled IP blocks, as I imagine many organizations won't want to continue to pay for IPs they will never use. Right now there's no incentive to recycle unused IP blocks and that has to change.
Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd
On 09/03/2023 10:00, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via members-discuss wrote:
If ARIN was “perfect” making references to their model might hold water, but they are far from that.
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.
From: members-discuss [<members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net) on behalf of Servperso via members-discuss [<members-discuss@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:10 To: members-discuss@ripe.net [<members-discuss@ripe.net>](mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) Subject: [members-discuss] New pricing proposal - it goes out of control
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
Hello Everyone,
I'm analyzing the new charging scheme proposed by RIPE NCC.
Adopt the new scheme like that KILL every small hosting provider include us. I don't think that's a good idea for RIPE NCC to kill a lot of small provider.
It kill net neutrality, and i think a lot of small isp call IANA to sanction the RIPE board for that.
In practice, you ask 8000€ / year because a provider has one ASN ? It's mostly mandatory for all members to own at least one.
Why not doing some in between prupose:
More "reasonable" base membership. Small ISP doesn't have to pay mush. Let imagine a resource quantity category.
IPv6 only => category 1
< 10 000 IPv4 => category 2
50 000 IPv4 => ....
...
- Extra fee for every PI of 50€
Like that, big isp who can pay for the RIPE work because they extract high value from them.
Also people who sponsor a lot of PI (who generate a lot of work for RIPE resource analyst) pay for the employment time.
As a reminder, ARIN use this model.
Best regards,
Sarah
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net [https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss](https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1508b49fea1c43d7724108db20b6e078%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139742037649653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VMXOOWxh1e%2B7qYQj5y9o5rxhw5s4B9aTInPvAvBeWgc%3D&reserved=0) Unsubscribe: [https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/michele%40blacknight.com](https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fmichele%2540blacknight.com&data=05%7C01%7C%7C1508b49fea1c43d7724108db20b6e078%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638139742037649653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1GXH0GCgQyqcFGNGlk%2F9YXqp2V8hq5qCXXiXBDA8%2FsU%3D&reserved=0)
As Kaj pointed out, to cut down on RIPE membership fees, people would rather _sell_ their 'unused' v4 space instead of returning it to the free pool for nothing. And checking the spreadsheet provided, one /17 is enough to fall into category 5, so you'd need to strip down to an /18 for category 4. Nah, Model 2 in the proposed form won't do anything with respect to redistribute IPv4 addresses, one way or the other. Ignoring that we're talking about the RIPE _Membership_ Fee, and skipping the question 'what services shall the RIPE Association provide that are to be paid for by the membership fees', the only "reasonably fair" model in the current train of thoughts would be "pay per unit": With presumably no more than roughly twice as many ASNs allocated as there are members (LIRs), I don't see much point in considering ASNs here. But for IPv4 and IPv6, any /24 and /48 equivalent of space held by a member that was received from the RIPE NCC, the member pays a "routable ressource fee". So a /8 holds 65536 /24, RIPE's budget is 50.000.000 EUR and, say, RIPE NCC received the equivalent of 5 /8 from IANA (ERX is ignored) which are handed out to, say, 100%, with 50% worldwide utilization of IPv4 still, each any every LIR would pay 76.29 EUR per /24 equivalent of address space it received from the RIPE NCC: 50,000,000/(65,536*5)*.5. Yes, that's 19531.00 EUR per /16 equivalent held, per year. Yes, holding onto IPv4 in the RIPE region would become pretty expensive. It's just to few addresses ... For v6, only the amount of space currently handed out is to be considered: A /12 holds 68.719.476.736 /48s or 1,048,576 /32s. RIPE NCC received two /12 as of now. According to IANA, RIPE NCC has 823,671 /32 left. This gives 1.273.481 allocated /32 or 83.458.850.816 /48. That gives 0.0002995488 EUR per /48 ((50.000.000/83.458.850.816)*0.5), i. e. 157.05 EUR per /29 (which holds 524.288 /48) or 19.63 EUR per /32. As these are moving targets, the math should be done on each 1st and the yearly amount should be the monthly average. I'm a bit surprised that RIPE NCC should have allocated 1.273.481 /32 already, but the RIPE NCC should use more acurate data anyway. But you get the idea: break down managed address space to the smallest routable object for IPv4 and IPv6, assign a divider "IPv4 vs IPv6" (I took 50:50, but to make IPv4 more expensive, 60:40 IMHO would be ok still). Adjust the budget per IP family and divide it by the corresponding number of smallest routable objects. Now one has a "budget share" in EUR per /24 and per /48, just multiply with each member's allocated space in smallest routable objects and you end up with a properly distributed financial burden, based purely on the member's address usage. To me, that's more like a anual service fee than a membership fee, but well, If "[t]here was a clear majority in favour of charging based on resources held", that's the way to go. Ah, before implementing this, transfers out of the RIPE service region must be stopped of course. Regards, -kai On 09.03.23 17:36, Josh Jameson wrote:
The rationale is something called giving an *equal opportunity to everyone*. The same way you obtained IP addresses from IP addresses from RIPE - other people and organizations should be able to do the same.
1. There are many more LIRs with smaller allocations that would benefit from the new proposed pricing model two. 2. RIPE NCC would benefit from pricing model two because it encourages IP address recycling. More LIRs in the future. 3. Our members benefit by increasing the availability of IPv4.
This is a limited resource of the internet. Nobody should be trying to control it as a commodity. Like land, it *should be taxed to prevent hoarding* and create a*healthy economy* based on*fair usage and work* to pay those taxes.
There are orgs in RIPE that have tens of thousands of IPs they don't use and they don't pay for them. They don't have any interest in selling them either.
I believe that just because an org became a member many years ago and got bucket loads of IPs for very little justification, doesn't mean they should be entitled to them in the future for no extra cost.
As I've already stated many times, this is not going to be a popular opinion to any member with a large allocation of IP addresses, but to be frank, I don't care if I offend them - this is my opinion and a small org's voice can be heard on RIPE as much as a large org.
Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd
On 09/03/2023 16:05, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Can you explain the rationale on returning addresses to RIPE NCC rather than selling them onward? There is a market for this thing which exists in limited amounts, you know. 😊
Kaj
*From:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> *On Behalf Of *Josh Jameson *Sent:* Thursday, March 9, 2023 16:08 *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] New pricing proposal - it goes out of control
Not to mention that ARIN ran out of IP addresses in 2015. They failed to preserve their resources long before any other region. It's not in the interest of RIPE NCC to follow that kind of logic.
I see other members suggesting to not over complicate things and just charge per /24. That could result in the pool being replenished with recycled IP blocks, as I imagine many organizations won't want to continue to pay for IPs they will never use. Right now there's no incentive to recycle unused IP blocks and that has to change.
Regards, Josh Jameson Technical Director ServeByte Ltd
-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail:k.siering@team.mail.de Web:https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
participants (10)
-
Andreas Schmieja -
Asta S. -
claudiu.foleanu＠thorpanel.com -
Hank Nussbacher -
Josh Jameson -
Kai Siering -
Kaj Niemi -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Servperso