Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board asks that the membership consider the charging scheme model that the RIPE NCC currently uses. The current "one LIR-one fee" charging scheme was first used for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2013. This scheme was introduced following the formation of a Charging Scheme Task Force in 2011, a discussion of the issue on the Members Discuss mailing list, and the presentation of three types of charging schemes for the members to vote on at the September 2012 General Meeting (GM). The three types of charging scheme presented to the members in 2012 can be seen at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012/documen... Since the approval of the "one LIR-one fee" charging scheme, annual fees per LIR have reduced from EUR 1,800 per annum to 1,400 per annum. Since 2015, members can also vote to approve the redistribution to the members of any surplus accumulated by the RIPE NCC in a year. The Executive Board believes that the current charging scheme model still meets the three broad criteria that the Charging Scheme Task Force recommended for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme: - The Charging Scheme model that is decided upon should be applicable for several years. - There should be stable fees per member. - A small number of members should not pay most of the membership fees. However, the Executive Board recognises that the membership has grown considerably since the current charging scheme model was introduced and that some members now feel that the current model is not a equitable way to pay for the RIPE NCC's activities. This is evident from emails the board has received, from comments received in the RIPE NCC Survey 2016, and from discussions among the members on RIPE working group mailing lists. The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this issue on <members-discuss@ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be. The Board has been contacted with a question regarding how a member could propose a topic to be voted on at a General Meeting. I would like to confirm that the board is always open to proposals regarding agenda items for the General Meeting. For the full background on how the agenda for a RIPE NCC General Meeting is set, please refer to articles 15.3 - 15.6 of the Articles of Association; as provided at the end of this email. Finally, I encourage all members to register to participate in the upcoming GM to ensure that the decisions reached reflect the overall wishes of the membership as far as possible. All details about the GM, including how to register, are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2016 Best regards Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman RIPE NCC Articles of Association https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-602 === 15.3 The agenda for the Annual Meeting shall include the following subjects: a. the adoption of the Financial Report; b. the discharge of the Executive Board with regard to its actions as they appear from the Annual Report; c. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board. 15.4 The following subjects shall be placed on the agenda for the Annual Meeting or on the agenda for another General Meeting to be held in the same calendar year: a. a discussion of the draft Activity Plan and draft budget after a presentation by the Executive Board; b. the adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year upon proposal of the Executive Board; c. a discussion of the policy and the quality of services (to be) rendered by the Association. 15.5 If applicable, the agenda for the Annual Meeting or another General Meeting shall also include the following subjects: a. the extension of the period within which the Executive Board shall submit the Annual Report (as referred to in paragraph 14.2), which shall also constitute an extension of the period within which the Annual Meeting - at which the Annual Report is to be submitted - shall be held; b. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board; upon proposal by the Executive Board: adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement; c. upon proposal by the Executive Board: approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure; e. other proposals and/or discussion points put forward by the Executive Board or (a group of) Members of the Association (pursuant to paragraph 15.6) and announced in the convocation for the Meeting. 15.6 On the written application of a group of Members who are jointly entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of possible votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an application, accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive Board at least two weeks before the Meeting. The Executive Board shall immediately send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members to all the Members of the Association.
On 13/09/2016, 12:15, "members-discuss on behalf of Nigel Titley" <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of nigel@titley.com> wrote:
The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this issue on <members-discuss@ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be.
Hi, The idea of a per LIR fee only seems to be (in principle) a good idea and one that I believe that should be retained by RIPE. However, there are a number of reasons to move to move to a system where 80% (a number plucked from the air) of the costs are made up from *all* members and the remainder made up based on the impact of individual members on the operational costs maintaining RIPE. How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”. I therefore propose that the remaining costs apportions are focused on two separate goals “accuracy of the database” and “conservation of scarce resource” if a proposal does not fit within *both* of these goals then it should be rejected as being not in the interest of the wider community. If we, as a community, cannot achieve changes that meet both these goals then I suggest we stay with the status quo. Thx J -- James Blessing CTO M: +44(0)7989 039 476 E: james.blessing@keycom.co.uk ________________________________ Email Disclaimer: This email transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only. Its contents are private and confidential and should not be read, copied or disclosed by any other person. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and any copies of it and telephone the sender or email them by return. Although Relish Networks plc believes that this message and any attachments are free of any viruses or other defects which may affect a computer, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is free of viruses and other defects. Relish Networks plc does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use. This email disclaimer is for all Relish Networks plc companies (Company registration number 03921568) whose registered office is at 20-22 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JS. Please consider the Environment before printing this email.
Hi, "How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”." It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources. The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in mind. When it comes to IPv6 it's irrelevant, and perhaps a single pricing model would be more appropriate in this case. Trying to stay impartial (impossible but...), how about: Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025? I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest. I'd like to see some form of IPv4 switch off target date set and a financial incentive model to encourage full deployment. Increasing costs for IPv4's in a disproportionate way, and artificially making IPv6 ready networks lower cost should do it? My take on this would therefore be to have a notional membership cost say 1 euro, and for the time being move to charging primarily based upon IPv4 resources and give discounts to each LIR that declares they're ready for an IPv4 switch off. To compensate for the economic advantage LIR's with large amounts of IPv4's have, a weighting could be applied to make each IPv4 address proportionally more expensive as well. If you think about it I don't think it's that far off from the thinking behind the current charging model. Speaking as a small LIR/ISP the current charging model appears to favour uptake of IPv6 by smaller LIR/ISP's, not the larger ones, where in my opinion it really matters. If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. I think once all the large networks are IPv6 ready, everyone else will follow suit very quickly, and all LIR's should be much happier once "IPv4 scarce resources" are no longer required. I understand that large networks are inherently more complex, however, they are usually much better funded as well, and imho should contribute proportionally more to the RIPE coffers. If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do. Regards Chris Smith Subtopia Ltd t.+44 (0)121 638 0888 -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of James Blessing Sent: 13 September 2016 12:59 PM To: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model On 13/09/2016, 12:15, "members-discuss on behalf of Nigel Titley" <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of nigel@titley.com> wrote:
The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this issue on <members-discuss@ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be.
Hi, The idea of a per LIR fee only seems to be (in principle) a good idea and one that I believe that should be retained by RIPE. However, there are a number of reasons to move to move to a system where 80% (a number plucked from the air) of the costs are made up from *all* members and the remainder made up based on the impact of individual members on the operational costs maintaining RIPE. How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”. I therefore propose that the remaining costs apportions are focused on two separate goals “accuracy of the database” and “conservation of scarce resource” if a proposal does not fit within *both* of these goals then it should be rejected as being not in the interest of the wider community. If we, as a community, cannot achieve changes that meet both these goals then I suggest we stay with the status quo. Thx J -- James Blessing CTO M: +44(0)7989 039 476 E: james.blessing@keycom.co.uk ________________________________ Email Disclaimer: This email transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only. Its contents are private and confidential and should not be read, copied or disclosed by any other person. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and any copies of it and telephone the sender or email them by return. Although Relish Networks plc believes that this message and any attachments are free of any viruses or other defects which may affect a computer, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is free of viruses and other defects. Relish Networks plc does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use. This email disclaimer is for all Relish Networks plc companies (Company registration number 03921568) whose registered office is at 20-22 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JS. Please consider the Environment before printing this email. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Good points Chris and I'd have to agree. The large LIR's (who gained their large and largely unused IPv4 resources many years ago at no cost) have many reasons not to prioritise IPv6, so they aren't doing so. Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help. I'd agree there are may be pinch points in many networks where, for example, even *slightly* older routers have lower throughput with IPv6 (we've CISCO's that route IPv4 in hardware and IPv6 in software for example) and I guess that stuff has to be assessed and worked though still in many networks. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Chris Smith Sent: 13 September 2016 20:57 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Hi, "How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”." It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources. The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in mind. When it comes to IPv6 it's irrelevant, and perhaps a single pricing model would be more appropriate in this case. Trying to stay impartial (impossible but...), how about: Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025? I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest. I'd like to see some form of IPv4 switch off target date set and a financial incentive model to encourage full deployment. Increasing costs for IPv4's in a disproportionate way, and artificially making IPv6 ready networks lower cost should do it? My take on this would therefore be to have a notional membership cost say 1 euro, and for the time being move to charging primarily based upon IPv4 resources and give discounts to each LIR that declares they're ready for an IPv4 switch off. To compensate for the economic advantage LIR's with large amounts of IPv4's have, a weighting could be applied to make each IPv4 address proportionally more expensive as well. If you think about it I don't think it's that far off from the thinking behind the current charging model. Speaking as a small LIR/ISP the current charging model appears to favour uptake of IPv6 by smaller LIR/ISP's, not the larger ones, where in my opinion it really matters. If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. I think once all the large networks are IPv6 ready, everyone else will follow suit very quickly, and all LIR's should be much happier once "IPv4 scarce resources" are no longer required. I understand that large networks are inherently more complex, however, they are usually much better funded as well, and imho should contribute proportionally more to the RIPE coffers. If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do. Regards Chris Smith Subtopia Ltd t.+44 (0)121 638 0888 -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of James Blessing Sent: 13 September 2016 12:59 PM To: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model On 13/09/2016, 12:15, "members-discuss on behalf of Nigel Titley" <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of nigel@titley.com> wrote:
The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this issue on <members-discuss@ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be.
Hi, The idea of a per LIR fee only seems to be (in principle) a good idea and one that I believe that should be retained by RIPE. However, there are a number of reasons to move to move to a system where 80% (a number plucked from the air) of the costs are made up from *all* members and the remainder made up based on the impact of individual members on the operational costs maintaining RIPE. How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”. I therefore propose that the remaining costs apportions are focused on two separate goals “accuracy of the database” and “conservation of scarce resource” if a proposal does not fit within *both* of these goals then it should be rejected as being not in the interest of the wider community. If we, as a community, cannot achieve changes that meet both these goals then I suggest we stay with the status quo. Thx J -- James Blessing CTO M: +44(0)7989 039 476 E: james.blessing@keycom.co.uk ________________________________ Email Disclaimer: This email transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only. Its contents are private and confidential and should not be read, copied or disclosed by any other person. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and any copies of it and telephone the sender or email them by return. Although Relish Networks plc believes that this message and any attachments are free of any viruses or other defects which may affect a computer, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is free of viruses and other defects. Relish Networks plc does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use. This email disclaimer is for all Relish Networks plc companies (Company registration number 03921568) whose registered office is at 20-22 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JS. Please consider the Environment before printing this email. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Paul
On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:40, Paul Webb <Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk> wrote:
Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help.
How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ? Chris
If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time.
Apart from BT and Sky that have both just finished the v6 rollouts. f
Sell IPv6 ports and IPv4 ports ? -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fearghas Mckay Sent: 14 September 2016 11:02 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Paul
On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:40, Paul Webb <Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk> wrote:
Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help.
How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ? Chris
If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time.
Apart from BT and Sky that have both just finished the v6 rollouts. f ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
You do understand Layer2 is MAC right? IP is in Layer3. On 14/09/16 12:07, Paul Webb wrote:
Sell IPv6 ports and IPv4 ports ?
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fearghas Mckay Sent: 14 September 2016 11:02 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Paul
On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:40, Paul Webb <Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk> wrote:
Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help. How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ?
Chris
If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. Apart from BT and Sky that have both just finished the v6 rollouts.
f
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
yes but the IX assigns the Peering IP's in their subnet Allocation ;) so it would be "Price v4 and v6 peering ip's differently" ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- Von: "Tim Armstrong" <t.armstrong@nerdalize.com> An: members-discuss@ripe.net Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2016 12:17:23 Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model You do understand Layer2 is MAC right? IP is in Layer3. On 14/09/16 12:07, Paul Webb wrote:
Sell IPv6 ports and IPv4 ports ?
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fearghas Mckay Sent: 14 September 2016 11:02 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Paul
On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:40, Paul Webb <Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk> wrote:
Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help. How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ?
Chris
If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. Apart from BT and Sky that have both just finished the v6 rollouts.
f
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Fearghas explicitly identified:
How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ?
While I've never seen a Layer2 only IX (presumably just an unmanaged switch in a colo DC?). The specific question is quite succinct. Presumably Fearchas operates, participates in, or knows of such an IX. -Tim On 14/09/16 12:27, Silvan M. Gebhardt wrote:
yes but the IX assigns the Peering IP's in their subnet Allocation ;)
so it would be "Price v4 and v6 peering ip's differently"
----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- Von: "Tim Armstrong" <t.armstrong@nerdalize.com> An: members-discuss@ripe.net Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2016 12:17:23 Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
You do understand Layer2 is MAC right? IP is in Layer3.
On 14/09/16 12:07, Paul Webb wrote:
Sell IPv6 ports and IPv4 ports ?
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fearghas Mckay Sent: 14 September 2016 11:02 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Paul
On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:40, Paul Webb <Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk> wrote:
Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help. How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ?
Chris
If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. Apart from BT and Sky that have both just finished the v6 rollouts.
f
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
??????????????? W dniu 2016-09-14 o 12:38, Tim Armstrong pisze:
Fearghas explicitly identified:
How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ?
While I've never seen a Layer2 only IX (presumably just an unmanaged switch in a colo DC?). The specific question is quite succinct.
Presumably Fearchas operates, participates in, or knows of such an IX.
-Tim
On 14/09/16 12:27, Silvan M. Gebhardt wrote:
yes but the IX assigns the Peering IP's in their subnet Allocation ;)
so it would be "Price v4 and v6 peering ip's differently"
----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- Von: "Tim Armstrong"<t.armstrong@nerdalize.com> An:members-discuss@ripe.net Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2016 12:17:23 Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
You do understand Layer2 is MAC right? IP is in Layer3.
On 14/09/16 12:07, Paul Webb wrote:
Sell IPv6 ports and IPv4 ports ?
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fearghas Mckay Sent: 14 September 2016 11:02 To:members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Paul
On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:40, Paul Webb<Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk> wrote:
Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help. How does an IX that operates at Layer 2 drive the price of IPv4 up ?
Chris
If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. Apart from BT and Sky that have both just finished the v6 rollouts.
f
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- ------------------- Pozdrawiam Damian Wójcik NET-BIS s.c. tel.: 667 767 701
On 14 Sep 2016, at 12:27, Silvan M. Gebhardt <gebhardt@openfactory.ch> wrote:
yes but the IX assigns the Peering IP's in their subnet Allocation ;)
so it would be "Price v4 and v6 peering ip's differently"
I can't speak for other IX'es but at least AMS-IX charges for port-speed, not for volume of traffic neither type of traffic. And brutally honest: this is never going to change simply because it's not the role of an exchange. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Arjan van der Oest Lead Mobile Engineer Voiceworks BV - Oplagestraat 1 - 1321 NK Almere Mobile : +31 6 8686 0000 Office : +31 36 7606656 GPG key on http://keyserver.pgp.com/ Key fingerprint = C58F 55CA C62A 5A49 15E0 2271 3481 6020 997E EE99
I am totally aware of that. I replied to the technical possiblity after someone said that this would be impossible since IXes are L2 only ;) let's drop this thread sideline! and can we get rid of the <explicit words> ticket systems? I have in the meantime received 3 autoreplies directly to me, and 1 undeliverables I have received username and passwords for 2 ticket systems, and about 2 tickets are open for me WTF why do people subscribe their ticket systems if they have autoreplies on that address. At least with OTRS, I can set things to be on "swallow it but don't say anything" Silvan On 09/14/2016 12:57 PM, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
I can't speak for other IX'es but at least AMS-IX charges for port-speed, not for volume of traffic neither type of traffic. And brutally honest: this is never going to change simply because it's not the role of an exchange.
Hi I think the current fee are really low enough to a point even intensive some abuse of the policy in which was heavily debated both in policy discussion and member discussion for past years. If we start asking big one paying 5000 euro a year(in which I don't think they would care), then unless RIPE tomorrow start spending 100 million a year, we will have to charge small one with 1000 IP around 200 Euro or 500 Euro a year...image the situation then. We will effectively finish the last /8 in a second. We have to asks for the great management of RIPE NCC, for the amount of work they have done for the amount of member, they are very good value for the money:) In a large picture, the cost to run RIPE NCC are really fiction of what's the total value of the IP address, so there is no way financial incentive in fees would change anything. My 2 cent. With regards. Lu On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Paul Webb < Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk> wrote:
Good points Chris and I'd have to agree. The large LIR's (who gained their large and largely unused IPv4 resources many years ago at no cost) have many reasons not to prioritise IPv6, so they aren't doing so.
Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help.
I'd agree there are may be pinch points in many networks where, for example, even *slightly* older routers have lower throughput with IPv6 (we've CISCO's that route IPv4 in hardware and IPv6 in software for example) and I guess that stuff has to be assessed and worked though still in many networks.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Chris Smith Sent: 13 September 2016 20:57 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Hi,
"How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”."
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources. The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in mind. When it comes to IPv6 it's irrelevant, and perhaps a single pricing model would be more appropriate in this case.
Trying to stay impartial (impossible but...), how about:
Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?
I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest. I'd like to see some form of IPv4 switch off target date set and a financial incentive model to encourage full deployment. Increasing costs for IPv4's in a disproportionate way, and artificially making IPv6 ready networks lower cost should do it?
My take on this would therefore be to have a notional membership cost say 1 euro, and for the time being move to charging primarily based upon IPv4 resources and give discounts to each LIR that declares they're ready for an IPv4 switch off. To compensate for the economic advantage LIR's with large amounts of IPv4's have, a weighting could be applied to make each IPv4 address proportionally more expensive as well.
If you think about it I don't think it's that far off from the thinking behind the current charging model.
Speaking as a small LIR/ISP the current charging model appears to favour uptake of IPv6 by smaller LIR/ISP's, not the larger ones, where in my opinion it really matters. If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. I think once all the large networks are IPv6 ready, everyone else will follow suit very quickly, and all LIR's should be much happier once "IPv4 scarce resources" are no longer required. I understand that large networks are inherently more complex, however, they are usually much better funded as well, and imho should contribute proportionally more to the RIPE coffers.
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
Regards
Chris Smith Subtopia Ltd t.+44 (0)121 638 0888
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of James Blessing Sent: 13 September 2016 12:59 PM To: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
On 13/09/2016, 12:15, "members-discuss on behalf of Nigel Titley" < members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of nigel@titley.com> wrote:
The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this issue on <members-discuss@ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be.
Hi,
The idea of a per LIR fee only seems to be (in principle) a good idea and one that I believe that should be retained by RIPE.
However, there are a number of reasons to move to move to a system where 80% (a number plucked from the air) of the costs are made up from *all* members and the remainder made up based on the impact of individual members on the operational costs maintaining RIPE.
How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”.
I therefore propose that the remaining costs apportions are focused on two separate goals “accuracy of the database” and “conservation of scarce resource” if a proposal does not fit within *both* of these goals then it should be rejected as being not in the interest of the wider community.
If we, as a community, cannot achieve changes that meet both these goals then I suggest we stay with the status quo.
Thx
J --
James Blessing CTO
M: +44(0)7989 039 476 E: james.blessing@keycom.co.uk
________________________________
Email Disclaimer: This email transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only. Its contents are private and confidential and should not be read, copied or disclosed by any other person. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and any copies of it and telephone the sender or email them by return.
Although Relish Networks plc believes that this message and any attachments are free of any viruses or other defects which may affect a computer, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is free of viruses and other defects. Relish Networks plc does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use.
This email disclaimer is for all Relish Networks plc companies (Company registration number 03921568) whose registered office is at 20-22 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JS.
Please consider the Environment before printing this email. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
W dniu 2016-09-14 o 12:04, Lu Heng pisze:
If we start asking big one paying 5000 euro a year(in which I don't think they would care), then unless RIPE tomorrow start spending 100 million a year, we will have to charge small one with 1000 IP around 200 Euro or 500 Euro a year...image the situation then.
We will effectively finish the last /8 in a second.
I completely agree with Lu and I'm opposing to the differentiation of fees depending on the size (based on amount of IPv4 resources only) of the LIR. Best regards -- Tomasz Śląski pl.skonet
I agree with Lu and I think everyone is missing the point and Lu made a very valid post. If you shift the burden of cost from where it is effectively 'equal' based on per LIR, to based on IP consumption. Small LIR's with say just the single /22 would be paying a couple hundred euro per year. RIPE is *not a for-profit business*. It is there to provide services, and cover the costs of those services which in the whole grand scheme of things is a big fat phone book of who has what IP space. Nothing more, nothing less. You can't expect RIPE, ARIN or any other RIR to try and use money as a leverage point to force IPV6, they just don't have that kind of power. Do you really believe that if they tried something like that, they wouldn't be sued into the stoneage? Why do you think legacy IP space still exists, because contracts had been formed and signed giving ownership of those blocks to the purchaser prior to the RIR's existence and the RIR's don't have a legal leg to stand on to get that back. Everyone just needs to keep in mind what a RIR really is, respect that, and go on with life, and not try and make it something it isn't or can't become. Daniel~ On 09/14/2016 05:04 AM, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi
I think the current fee are really low enough to a point even intensive some abuse of the policy in which was heavily debated both in policy discussion and member discussion for past years.
If we start asking big one paying 5000 euro a year(in which I don't think they would care), then unless RIPE tomorrow start spending 100 million a year, we will have to charge small one with 1000 IP around 200 Euro or 500 Euro a year...image the situation then.
We will effectively finish the last /8 in a second.
We have to asks for the great management of RIPE NCC, for the amount of work they have done for the amount of member, they are very good value for the money:)
In a large picture, the cost to run RIPE NCC are really fiction of what's the total value of the IP address, so there is no way financial incentive in fees would change anything.
My 2 cent.
With regards.
Lu
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Paul Webb <Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk <mailto:Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk>> wrote:
Good points Chris and I'd have to agree. The large LIR's (who gained their large and largely unused IPv4 resources many years ago at no cost) have many reasons not to prioritise IPv6, so they aren't doing so.
Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a disproportionate influence in all the important places, which doesn't help.
I'd agree there are may be pinch points in many networks where, for example, even *slightly* older routers have lower throughput with IPv6 (we've CISCO's that route IPv4 in hardware and IPv6 in software for example) and I guess that stuff has to be assessed and worked though still in many networks.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Chris Smith Sent: 13 September 2016 20:57 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Hi,
"How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”."
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources. The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in mind. When it comes to IPv6 it's irrelevant, and perhaps a single pricing model would be more appropriate in this case.
Trying to stay impartial (impossible but...), how about:
Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?
I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest. I'd like to see some form of IPv4 switch off target date set and a financial incentive model to encourage full deployment. Increasing costs for IPv4's in a disproportionate way, and artificially making IPv6 ready networks lower cost should do it?
My take on this would therefore be to have a notional membership cost say 1 euro, and for the time being move to charging primarily based upon IPv4 resources and give discounts to each LIR that declares they're ready for an IPv4 switch off. To compensate for the economic advantage LIR's with large amounts of IPv4's have, a weighting could be applied to make each IPv4 address proportionally more expensive as well.
If you think about it I don't think it's that far off from the thinking behind the current charging model.
Speaking as a small LIR/ISP the current charging model appears to favour uptake of IPv6 by smaller LIR/ISP's, not the larger ones, where in my opinion it really matters. If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have been for some time. I think once all the large networks are IPv6 ready, everyone else will follow suit very quickly, and all LIR's should be much happier once "IPv4 scarce resources" are no longer required. I understand that large networks are inherently more complex, however, they are usually much better funded as well, and imho should contribute proportionally more to the RIPE coffers.
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
Regards
Chris Smith Subtopia Ltd t.+44 (0)121 638 0888
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of James Blessing Sent: 13 September 2016 12:59 PM To: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
On 13/09/2016, 12:15, "members-discuss on behalf of Nigel Titley" <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of nigel@titley.com <mailto:nigel@titley.com>> wrote:
> The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the > upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this > issue on <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>, keeping the discussion focused on > whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE > NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be.
Hi,
The idea of a per LIR fee only seems to be (in principle) a good idea and one that I believe that should be retained by RIPE.
However, there are a number of reasons to move to move to a system where 80% (a number plucked from the air) of the costs are made up from *all* members and the remainder made up based on the impact of individual members on the operational costs maintaining RIPE.
How you calculate these costs would of course depend on a number of different factors and I can see different members proposing things to their own benefit (and therefore the detriment of others) without reference to a single “goal”.
I therefore propose that the remaining costs apportions are focused on two separate goals “accuracy of the database” and “conservation of scarce resource” if a proposal does not fit within *both* of these goals then it should be rejected as being not in the interest of the wider community.
If we, as a community, cannot achieve changes that meet both these goals then I suggest we stay with the status quo.
Thx
J --
James Blessing CTO
M: +44(0)7989 039 476 <tel:%2B44%280%297989%20039%20476> E: james.blessing@keycom.co.uk <mailto:james.blessing@keycom.co.uk>
________________________________
Email Disclaimer: This email transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only. Its contents are private and confidential and should not be read, copied or disclosed by any other person. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and any copies of it and telephone the sender or email them by return.
Although Relish Networks plc believes that this message and any attachments are free of any viruses or other defects which may affect a computer, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is free of viruses and other defects. Relish Networks plc does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use.
This email disclaimer is for all Relish Networks plc companies (Company registration number 03921568) whose registered office is at 20-22 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JS.
Please consider the Environment before printing this email. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
I'm exactly the same opinion as Daniel! If you shift the burden of cost from where it is effectively 'equal' based on per LIR, to based on IP consumption. Small LIR's with say just the single /22 would be paying a couple hundred euro per year. RIPE is not a for-profit business. It is there to provide services, and cover the costs of those services which in the whole grand scheme of things is a big fat phone book of who has what IP space. Nothing more, nothing less. De : members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] De la part de Daniel Pearson Envoyé : mercredi 14 septembre 2016 14:36 À : members-discuss@ripe.net Objet : Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model I agree with Lu and I think everyone is missing the point and Lu made a very valid post. If you shift the burden of cost from where it is effectively 'equal' based on per LIR, to based on IP consumption. Small LIR's with say just the single /22 would be paying a couple hundred euro per year. RIPE is not a for-profit business. It is there to provide services, and cover the costs of those services which in the whole grand scheme of things is a big fat phone book of who has what IP space. Nothing more, nothing less. You can't expect RIPE, ARIN or any other RIR to try and use money as a leverage point to force IPV6, they just don't have that kind of power. Do you really believe that if they tried something like that, they wouldn't be sued into the stoneage? Why do you think legacy IP space still exists, because contracts had been formed and signed giving ownership of those blocks to the purchaser prior to the RIR's existence and the RIR's don't have a legal leg to stand on to get that back. Everyone just needs to keep in mind what a RIR really is, respect that, and go on with life, and not try and make it something it isn't or can't become. Daniel~
On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote:
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources.
Whilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is using your model for their organisation
The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in mind.
Ultimately RIPEs "job" is to maintain a list (DB) and as a community, set policy for getting things onto that list. Each LIRs "cost" to RIPE is administrative (membership management, sending letters etc) and _somewhat_ proportionate to how much data they have in that database (and how much support/manual-work they need) The numbers in the "starting ip" and "ending ip" fields don't change that cost, effectively a /32 "costs" no more or less than a /8 - 1 record in a db is 1 record in a db
Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?
A goal to have all "publicly accessible internet devices accessible over ipv6" makes sense, but there is (and never will be) a "need" to kill off ipv4.
I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest.
It's certainly not in "everyones" interest - there are millions of IPv4-only devices out there, it's not in the owners interest to have to buy (even if it was possible to replace) new ones.
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range. Making IPv6 resources "cheaper" might be an incentive to adoption, but I doubt it. Getting the bulk of "end users" on IPv6 is (and always has been) the only real way to drive usage up, and in general end-users neither know nor care, IP is IP is IP at the end of the day Rob
On 14/09/2016 16:24, Rob Golding wrote:
On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote:
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources.
Whilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is using your model for their organisation Can we keep it a clean conversation without "ad hominem" attacks?
That remark was quite useless at best, disrespectful at worst.
The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in mind.
Ultimately RIPEs "job" is to maintain a list (DB) and as a community, set policy for getting things onto that list.
Each LIRs "cost" to RIPE is administrative (membership management, sending letters etc) and _somewhat_ proportionate to how much data they have in that database (and how much support/manual-work they need)
The numbers in the "starting ip" and "ending ip" fields don't change that cost, effectively a /32 "costs" no more or less than a /8 - 1 record in a db is 1 record in a db
"We're an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that supports the infrastructure of the Internet through technical coordination in our service region. Our most prominent activity is to act as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet resources and related services (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Number resources) to members in our service region." It clearly states "providing global Internet resources and related services" and not "maintaining a DB". The more you use resources, the more you cost to maintain. That seems fair.
Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?
A goal to have all "publicly accessible internet devices accessible over ipv6" makes sense, but there is (and never will be) a "need" to kill off ipv4.
We are drifting off topic here. But I suggest that you reconsider your position.
I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest.
It's certainly not in "everyones" interest - there are millions of IPv4-only devices out there, it's not in the owners interest to have to buy (even if it was possible to replace) new ones.
It is in the greater-good's interest.
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range.
Let's take it from another perspective: If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE? Well, in my opinion: Yes.
Making IPv6 resources "cheaper" might be an incentive to adoption, but I doubt it.
Getting the bulk of "end users" on IPv6 is (and always has been) the only real way to drive usage up, and in general end-users neither know nor care, IP is IP is IP at the end of the day
Agree.
Rob
---
B.
Well said, +1 Arash -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Bastien Schils Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2016 4:49 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model On 14/09/2016 16:24, Rob Golding wrote:
On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote:
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources.
Whilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is using your model for their organisation Can we keep it a clean conversation without "ad hominem" attacks?
That remark was quite useless at best, disrespectful at worst.
The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in mind.
Ultimately RIPEs "job" is to maintain a list (DB) and as a community, set policy for getting things onto that list.
Each LIRs "cost" to RIPE is administrative (membership management, sending letters etc) and _somewhat_ proportionate to how much data they have in that database (and how much support/manual-work they need)
The numbers in the "starting ip" and "ending ip" fields don't change that cost, effectively a /32 "costs" no more or less than a /8 - 1 record in a db is 1 record in a db
"We're an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that supports the infrastructure of the Internet through technical coordination in our service region. Our most prominent activity is to act as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet resources and related services (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Number resources) to members in our service region." It clearly states "providing global Internet resources and related services" and not "maintaining a DB". The more you use resources, the more you cost to maintain. That seems fair.
Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?
A goal to have all "publicly accessible internet devices accessible over ipv6" makes sense, but there is (and never will be) a "need" to kill off ipv4.
We are drifting off topic here. But I suggest that you reconsider your position.
I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest.
It's certainly not in "everyones" interest - there are millions of IPv4-only devices out there, it's not in the owners interest to have to buy (even if it was possible to replace) new ones.
It is in the greater-good's interest.
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range.
Let's take it from another perspective: If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE? Well, in my opinion: Yes.
Making IPv6 resources "cheaper" might be an incentive to adoption, but I doubt it.
Getting the bulk of "end users" on IPv6 is (and always has been) the only real way to drive usage up, and in general end-users neither know nor care, IP is IP is IP at the end of the day
Agree.
Rob
---
B. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi, On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Bastien Schils wrote:
Ultimately RIPEs "job" is to maintain a list (DB) and as a community, set policy for getting things onto that list.
Each LIRs "cost" to RIPE is administrative (membership management, sending letters etc) and _somewhat_ proportionate to how much data they have in that database (and how much support/manual-work they need)
The numbers in the "starting ip" and "ending ip" fields don't change that cost, effectively a /32 "costs" no more or less than a /8 - 1 record in a db is 1 record in a db
"We're an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that supports the infrastructure of the Internet through technical coordination in our service region. Our most prominent activity is to act as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet resources and related services (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Number resources) to members in our service region."
It clearly states "providing global Internet resources and related services" and not "maintaining a DB".
Isn't maintaining a DB part of "related services"?
The more you use resources, the more you cost to maintain. That seems fair.
Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?
A goal to have all "publicly accessible internet devices accessible over ipv6" makes sense, but there is (and never will be) a "need" to kill off ipv4. We are drifting off topic here. But I suggest that you reconsider your position.
"Kill off IPv4" doesn't sound like a useful motto...
I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest.
It's certainly not in "everyones" interest - there are millions of IPv4-only devices out there, it's not in the owners interest to have to buy (even if it was possible to replace) new ones. It is in the greater-good's interest.
For me, the thin line (that needs to be crossed) is going from a situation where IPv4 is dominant (and IPv6-only devices need translation services), to a (global) scenario where IPv6 is dominant (and IPv4-only devices need translation services). Translation is kind of costly, afaik, also performance-wise...
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range. Let's take it from another perspective: If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE?
Well, in my opinion: Yes.
I'm not sure about that..... newcomers (which by the current policy only get a /22) are probably where the NCC is spending the largest part of their effort. Is there any measurement already? Maybe a topic for RIPE Labs? :-)
Making IPv6 resources "cheaper" might be an incentive to adoption, but I doubt it.
Getting the bulk of "end users" on IPv6 is (and always has been) the only real way to drive usage up, and in general end-users neither know nor care, IP is IP is IP at the end of the day
Agree.
Yes, transparency to the "end users" is key in this process. I'm also not sure how IPv6 resources could get any cheaper. Cheers, Carlos (pt.rccn)
Hi, On 15-9-2016 09:46, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Bastien Schils wrote:
Ultimately RIPEs "job" is to maintain a list (DB) and as a community, set policy for getting things onto that list.
Each LIRs "cost" to RIPE is administrative (membership management, sending letters etc) and _somewhat_ proportionate to how much data they have in that database (and how much support/manual-work they need)
The numbers in the "starting ip" and "ending ip" fields don't change that cost, effectively a /32 "costs" no more or less than a /8 - 1 record in a db is 1 record in a db
"We're an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that supports the infrastructure of the Internet through technical coordination in our service region. Our most prominent activity is to act as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet resources and related services (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Number resources) to members in our service region."
It clearly states "providing global Internet resources and related services" and not "maintaining a DB".
Isn't maintaining a DB part of "related services"?
Seems to me it is
The more you use resources, the more you cost to maintain. That seems fair.
Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?
A goal to have all "publicly accessible internet devices accessible over ipv6" makes sense, but there is (and never will be) a "need" to kill off ipv4. We are drifting off topic here. But I suggest that you reconsider your position.
"Kill off IPv4" doesn't sound like a useful motto...
I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest.
It's certainly not in "everyones" interest - there are millions of IPv4-only devices out there, it's not in the owners interest to have to buy (even if it was possible to replace) new ones. It is in the greater-good's interest.
For me, the thin line (that needs to be crossed) is going from a situation where IPv4 is dominant (and IPv6-only devices need translation services), to a (global) scenario where IPv6 is dominant (and IPv4-only devices need translation services).
Translation is kind of costly, afaik, also performance-wise...
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range. Let's take it from another perspective: If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE?
Well, in my opinion: Yes.
I'm not sure about that..... newcomers (which by the current policy only get a /22) are probably where the NCC is spending the largest part of their effort. Is there any measurement already? Maybe a topic for RIPE Labs? :-)
Suspect the same. Furthermore 1 IP != 1 resource, as stated before.
Making IPv6 resources "cheaper" might be an incentive to adoption, but I doubt it.
Getting the bulk of "end users" on IPv6 is (and always has been) the only real way to drive usage up, and in general end-users neither know nor care, IP is IP is IP at the end of the day
Agree.
Yes, transparency to the "end users" is key in this process. I'm also not sure how IPv6 resources could get any cheaper.
But as it stands, RIPE can lobby for furthering IPv6 but not force it by pricing policy. The forces that control IPv6 adoptation within companies lie well beyond the reach of RIPE. Best regards, Piet
Cheers, Carlos (pt.rccn)
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.
On 09/15/2016 09:46 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range. Let's take it from another perspective: If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE?
Well, in my opinion: Yes.
I'm not sure about that..... newcomers (which by the current policy only get a /22) are probably where the NCC is spending the largest part of their effort. Is there any measurement already?
Would argue that any extra effort is already paid by the newcomers themselves in the form of the 2000 EUR setup fee. And as a recent newcomer I am not really that impressed by what you get for that amount. If you are a Dutch company they do not even send the paperwork by trackable means, but do not want to spend more than a stamp on you. The first time they send the agreement by regular postal mail it never arrived, and it took three weeks before they could be bothered to resend it a second time. That did arrive, despite them putting the address in the wrong format for my country on it, which doesn't exactly speed up postal sorting and delivery either... Anyway, back on topic. I would argue that differentiating membership fees based on size of assignment do would be fair. The cost per customer is a lot higher for smaller members than large ones, and as such the latter have an economic advantage. Furthermore the setup fee already provides a sufficient barrier preventing the number of companies signing up as LIR to explode. No need to keep the membership fee artificially high for smaller member for that purpose. Yours sincerely, Floris Bos
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:13:26PM +0200, Floris Bos wrote:
On 09/15/2016 09:46 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote: The cost per customer is a lot higher for smaller members than large ones, and as such the latter have an economic advantage.
While this holds truth, it is not (and cannot legally be) the job of the NCC to redress market imbalances. That is a job for a government - which the NCC is *not*
Furthermore the setup fee already provides a sufficient barrier preventing the number of companies signing up as LIR to explode. No need to keep the membership fee artificially high for smaller member for that purpose.
It does not necessarily follow that higher fees for larger members means cheaper fees for smaller ones. It could be argued that, if there were cheaper fees for startup members, this would encourage creating LIRs for ipv4 speculation but it is, of course, not the function of the charging scheme to create an artificial barrier-to-entry, either. Kind Regards, Sascha Luck
I don't think people really understand how RIPE works and what little power financially speaking they have. Lets take this from RIPE's own annual report: The RIPE NCC’s most prominent tasks include: • Registering and distributing Internet number resources • Operating the RIPE Database • Operating K-root, one of the world’s 13 root name server clusters • Facilitating RIPE community activities • Developing the RIPE Atlas network • Providing high-quality measurement information services So yes, RIPE maintains a big database, that is their job. Take time, read over their financial reports. RIPE has an operating cost of about 21,978,000 EUR per year with an income of 26,878 kEUR, so a refund/rebate of 5,335 kEUR was sent to everyone on their renewals the following year. To date, RIPE has 14,344 LIR's , so back in 2015 based on the Annual report they had about 12,830 Paying LIR's. Let's do the math here. Based on the accounting and *cost* to run RIPE , for 12,830 LIR's the average cost per LIR would be 1,713 EUR / year. With even more LIR's, the cost to maintain them will not go up that much, so the cost per LIR has dropped even more. If someone wants to get a total number of addresses managed by RIPE then based on the above numbers we can easily calculate down to a per IP charge. But lets have some fun. 4,294,967,296 addresses are in the world, of which IANA has 16 /8's reserved for future use, and 16 more /8s reserved for multicast use only. Plus one more /8 held back for local identification. So lets erase 553,648,062 addresses from that number to start. So down to 3,741,319,234 addresses to go. Minus another 92 /8's that are still in legacy status according to IANA So we're down to 2,197,815,546 resources to split between RIPE, ARIN, APNIC & LANIC. Let's make some assumptions now. Lets just say, since RIPE is a pretty big region, it gets 40% of those addresses. So 879,126,218~ addresses to play with. So that's 0.024 EUR PER IP PER YEAR. Making the cost of someone with a single /22 to be... 24 EUR per year. Now, if someone had a /8 , sure they are going to pay a pretty good chunk. 402,653 EUR per year. But let's face it. You are going to encounter two distinct facts here. 1) The low cost of a /22 will exhaust resources immediately, as the total sum collected from signup fee's was refunded and reimbursed to members the following year, so the signup fee argument is invalid. 2) The guys with the /8 will guaranteed invest 400,000 EUR in their legal team, before paying RIPE 400,000 EUR per year per /8 which will inturn increase the cost of RIPEs operation (or just put it out of business completely). Then where will we be? Higher fee's to fight off the legal battles or wasted years and lots of refunds because of ill-advised changes. Not to be an ass, but hopefully this will put an end to this silly discussion. The most fair way is a relatively equal playing field based on the LIR and not the amount of resources one maintains. Keep in mind, the more IP's RIPE manages, the lower this cost goes. My 879~ Million estimate is just that, a rough estimate I pulled out of relatively thin air. If someone wants to provide actual stats for how many IP's are in the RIPE pool, minus Legacy space which would be hard to bill please feel free to add to this. Otherwise have a great day. On 09/15/2016 06:41 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
On Thu Sep 15, 2016 at 08:48:59AM +0200, Bastien Schils wrote:
On 14/09/2016 16:24, Rob Golding wrote:
On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote:
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources. Whilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is using your model for their organisation Can we keep it a clean conversation without "ad hominem" attacks?
That remark was quite useless at best, disrespectful at worst. No it is not an attack, useless or disrespectful.
It is central to the lack of consensus on charging model. LIR are a diverse community, ignoring that will only prolong the discussion
The flat pricing is the simplest model to apply to all. If a proportional model is desired then it should relate to the cost of service not the number of IPs or prefixes unless they have a direct cost (they were allocated to RIPE for free?)
As a small LIR we would benefit if it was based on total IP count but be worse off if it was quantity of prefixes as we've had a number of small allocations due to not obtaining a single large one early.
We'd probably benefit if it was based on hours of support used as we interact with RIPE very little, usually initiated by RIPE as some voted to change something.
I'm not sure why RIPE initiated this discussion, it just rakes over old arguments that had no route to consensus
brandon
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On 09/15/2016 06:13 AM, Floris Bos wrote:
On 09/15/2016 09:46 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range. Let's take it from another perspective: If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE?
Well, in my opinion: Yes.
I'm not sure about that..... newcomers (which by the current policy only get a /22) are probably where the NCC is spending the largest part of their effort. Is there any measurement already?
Would argue that any extra effort is already paid by the newcomers themselves in the form of the 2000 EUR setup fee.
And as a recent newcomer I am not really that impressed by what you get for that amount. If you are a Dutch company they do not even send the paperwork by trackable means, but do not want to spend more than a stamp on you. The first time they send the agreement by regular postal mail it never arrived, and it took three weeks before they could be bothered to resend it a second time. That did arrive, despite them putting the address in the wrong format for my country on it, which doesn't exactly speed up postal sorting and delivery either...
Anyway, back on topic. I would argue that differentiating membership fees based on size of assignment do would be fair. The cost per customer is a lot higher for smaller members than large ones, and as such the latter have an economic advantage. Furthermore the setup fee already provides a sufficient barrier preventing the number of companies signing up as LIR to explode. No need to keep the membership fee artificially high for smaller member for that purpose.
Yours sincerely,
Floris Bos
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hello, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 09:46, Carlos Friacas wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Bastien Schils wrote:
"We're an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that supports the infrastructure of the Internet through technical coordination in our service region. Our most prominent activity is to act as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet resources and related services (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Number resources) to members in our service region."
It clearly states "providing global Internet resources and related services" and not "maintaining a DB".
Isn't maintaining a DB part of "related services"?
Yes maintaining a database is part of *related* services, which disqualifies RIPE NCC from being "a big fat phone book of who has what IP space. Nothing more, nothing less." as stated previously. Among other things, RIPE NCC does NOT register whatever members request in the database (like "hey, I'd like to register 185.192.0.0/10 to myself"). Until some future GM decides that resource allocation is no longer an activity (of governments mess up with the IANA->RIR system), RIPE NCC does distribute Internet-related numbering resources.
On Thu Sep 15, 2016 at 08:48:59AM +0200, Bastien Schils wrote:
On 14/09/2016 16:24, Rob Golding wrote:
On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote:
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources.
Whilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is using your model for their organisation Can we keep it a clean conversation without "ad hominem" attacks?
That remark was quite useless at best, disrespectful at worst.
No it is not an attack, useless or disrespectful. It is central to the lack of consensus on charging model. LIR are a diverse community, ignoring that will only prolong the discussion The flat pricing is the simplest model to apply to all. If a proportional model is desired then it should relate to the cost of service not the number of IPs or prefixes unless they have a direct cost (they were allocated to RIPE for free?) As a small LIR we would benefit if it was based on total IP count but be worse off if it was quantity of prefixes as we've had a number of small allocations due to not obtaining a single large one early. We'd probably benefit if it was based on hours of support used as we interact with RIPE very little, usually initiated by RIPE as some voted to change something. I'm not sure why RIPE initiated this discussion, it just rakes over old arguments that had no route to consensus brandon
On 15/09/16 12:41, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I'm not sure why RIPE initiated this discussion, it just rakes over old arguments that had no route to consensus
RIPE NCC initiated this discussion as a result of a recent previous discussion on this list and as a result of a direct request to the executive board. I'm afraid this is just an overhead of operating a member focused organisation. Nigel
On Thu Sep 15, 2016 at 04:48:31PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 15/09/16 12:41, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I'm not sure why RIPE initiated this discussion, it just rakes over old arguments that had no route to consensus
RIPE NCC initiated this discussion as a result of a recent previous discussion on this list and as a result of a direct request to the executive board.
Are there new options to consider? So far it seems we're just running round the same old circles to satisfy that one person.
I'm afraid this is just an overhead of operating a member focused organisation.
Knowing it's overhead makes it easier to decide spending time on it. brandon
Acknowledging that it's an old problem doesn't stop it being a problem. Sometime worrying a bone long enough can resolve an old problem......I think Martin Luther King would have agreed. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth Sent: 16 September 2016 09:01 To: Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model On Thu Sep 15, 2016 at 04:48:31PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 15/09/16 12:41, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I'm not sure why RIPE initiated this discussion, it just rakes over old arguments that had no route to consensus
RIPE NCC initiated this discussion as a result of a recent previous discussion on this list and as a result of a direct request to the executive board.
Are there new options to consider? So far it seems we're just running round the same old circles to satisfy that one person.
I'm afraid this is just an overhead of operating a member focused organisation.
Knowing it's overhead makes it easier to decide spending time on it. brandon ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
I don't necessarily mind the discussion, but It would be nice if people actually researched and put some fact in with their fiction. Only took me a few hours to review over RIPE's annual report and budget to determine that any fee structure changes wouldn't do a lick of good. On 09/15/2016 10:48 AM, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 15/09/16 12:41, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
I'm not sure why RIPE initiated this discussion, it just rakes over old arguments that had no route to consensus RIPE NCC initiated this discussion as a result of a recent previous discussion on this list and as a result of a direct request to the executive board.
I'm afraid this is just an overhead of operating a member focused organisation.
Nigel
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:48:59AM +0200, Bastien Schils wrote:
It clearly states "providing global Internet resources and related services" and not "maintaining a DB".
The more you use resources, the more you cost to maintain. That seems fair.
But that's not actually true. A LIR that just humms along, never sending any request for resources, never opening a ticket will cause nearly no cost - while a LIR that sends in a question every 5 days will cause quite a bit of cost. Independent of the number of resources they have. Back in the day, a "large LIR" would inevitably send in more requests than a "small LIR" - but since nobody can get extra resources after their last /22, this is no longer true. So, if *cost* is the concern, "startup LIRs that request their first /22" are actually the ones that need most (human) resources, not "old LIRs that have all they will ever get, and never ask for more". Looking at the training department, who do you think will need more training? Old and experienced LIRs, or startups? Database costs, housing, electricity are mostly the same, no matter how many resources a LIR has. [..]
Let's take it from another perspective: If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE?
Well, in my opinion: Yes.
You need to recalibrate your opinions :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hello, I think there are considerable costs with resource transfers. And there both small and large LIRs involved in the process. Regards, Radu Gheorghiu XT Global Networks LTD. Original Message From: Gert Doering Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 15:07 To: Bastien Schils Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Hi, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:48:59AM +0200, Bastien Schils wrote:
It clearly states "providing global Internet resources and related services" and not "maintaining a DB".
The more you use resources, the more you cost to maintain. That seems fair.
But that's not actually true. A LIR that just humms along, never sending any request for resources, never opening a ticket will cause nearly no cost - while a LIR that sends in a question every 5 days will cause quite a bit of cost. Independent of the number of resources they have. Back in the day, a "large LIR" would inevitably send in more requests than a "small LIR" - but since nobody can get extra resources after their last /22, this is no longer true. So, if *cost* is the concern, "startup LIRs that request their first /22" are actually the ones that need most (human) resources, not "old LIRs that have all they will ever get, and never ask for more". Looking at the training department, who do you think will need more training? Old and experienced LIRs, or startups? Database costs, housing, electricity are mostly the same, no matter how many resources a LIR has. [..]
Let's take it from another perspective: If a LIR has 100 more IPs than another, wouldn't it be expected to think that this LIR is 100 times more likely to need actions from the RIPE?
Well, in my opinion: Yes.
You need to recalibrate your opinions :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 14:06, Gert Doering wrote:
But that's not actually true. A LIR that just humms along, never sending any request for resources, never opening a ticket will cause nearly no cost - while a LIR that sends in a question every 5 days will cause quite a bit of cost. Independent of the number of resources they have.
Back in the day, a "large LIR" would inevitably send in more requests than a "small LIR" - but since nobody can get extra resources after their last /22, this is no longer true.
So, if *cost* is the concern, "startup LIRs that request their first /22" are actually the ones that need most (human) resources, not "old LIRs that have all they will ever get, and never ask for more". Looking at the training department, who do you think will need more training? Old and experienced LIRs, or startups?
Database costs, housing, electricity are mostly the same, no matter how many resources a LIR has.
Gert, While human cost is important (56% of total), it's not the only cost. A big old LIR having a /11 (or similar) that fills the DB with 100K objects (growing at 10 per week) does generate some indirect work (including FTEs), much more than an new LIR that will rarely have more than 50 objects. ... And while the service fee accounts for most of the revenue - 77.5%, set-up fees account for other 19% of revenue and are supposed to cover typical use of a new member (checks, exchanging documents, allocating 1 x IPv4, 1 x IPv6 and 1 x ASN - procedures largely simplified recently, and not to forget 2 free RIPE meeting tickets that I'm not sure so many members use). I would like to have some information of the workload required in order to perform transfers (price = ZERO) and M&A (or what's left of it) which costs (the LIRs concerned) between (almost) zero and 3/4 of the yearly fee (depending on the quarter it has been performed in). And then there's the issue of non-voting members. Not the ones that have less than 6 months at the GM, but those that are "multiple LIRs per organisation". While some legal requirements are involved, one may easily think about "taxation without representation". And sorry to bring this here, but with a policy proposal in the discussion phase (2016-03) that aims (among other things) to add some form of segregation between LIRs based on what they can do with resources received from RIPE NCC, differentiated service fees starts making more sense. Besides, RIPE NCC had differentiated service fees in some form or another for about 20 years (until 2012). Since then (barely 4 years) membership count increased by more than 50%; voting members count should not be far from that. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Not seeking to deliberately add complication, but trying to address the issue of scarce IPv4 resources, should unused IPv4 resources cost more than ones in use? The concern of smaller LIR's (and the cause of much RIPE workload) is the administration and effort in administering new space (and all methods associated thereto), and this effort would be reduced if larger LIR's with unused space returned it (which they would never willingly do). If space is in use, it probably represents market success and good luck to those LIR's, but unused space is a market distortion caused by sub-optimal RIPE planning in the past, and correcting this could reduce everyone's costs and create a more orderly market too. Small and new LIR's (by definition) probably grow more (in RIPE resource terms) than large and old ones, so some sort of transaction fee for acquirers (compensating divestors) would be appropriate. Or better still why not have all space "rented" so there is less commercial advantage to hoarding? -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian Feurdean Sent: 15 September 2016 22:40 To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 14:06, Gert Doering wrote:
But that's not actually true. A LIR that just humms along, never sending any request for resources, never opening a ticket will cause nearly no cost - while a LIR that sends in a question every 5 days will cause quite a bit of cost. Independent of the number of resources they have.
Back in the day, a "large LIR" would inevitably send in more requests than a "small LIR" - but since nobody can get extra resources after their last /22, this is no longer true.
So, if *cost* is the concern, "startup LIRs that request their first /22" are actually the ones that need most (human) resources, not "old LIRs that have all they will ever get, and never ask for more". Looking at the training department, who do you think will need more training? Old and experienced LIRs, or startups?
Database costs, housing, electricity are mostly the same, no matter how many resources a LIR has.
Gert, While human cost is important (56% of total), it's not the only cost. A big old LIR having a /11 (or similar) that fills the DB with 100K objects (growing at 10 per week) does generate some indirect work (including FTEs), much more than an new LIR that will rarely have more than 50 objects. ... And while the service fee accounts for most of the revenue - 77.5%, set-up fees account for other 19% of revenue and are supposed to cover typical use of a new member (checks, exchanging documents, allocating 1 x IPv4, 1 x IPv6 and 1 x ASN - procedures largely simplified recently, and not to forget 2 free RIPE meeting tickets that I'm not sure so many members use). I would like to have some information of the workload required in order to perform transfers (price = ZERO) and M&A (or what's left of it) which costs (the LIRs concerned) between (almost) zero and 3/4 of the yearly fee (depending on the quarter it has been performed in). And then there's the issue of non-voting members. Not the ones that have less than 6 months at the GM, but those that are "multiple LIRs per organisation". While some legal requirements are involved, one may easily think about "taxation without representation". And sorry to bring this here, but with a policy proposal in the discussion phase (2016-03) that aims (among other things) to add some form of segregation between LIRs based on what they can do with resources received from RIPE NCC, differentiated service fees starts making more sense. Besides, RIPE NCC had differentiated service fees in some form or another for about 20 years (until 2012). Since then (barely 4 years) membership count increased by more than 50%; voting members count should not be far from that. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Radu, Can I ask where you found these numbers? On 09/15/2016 04:40 PM, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 14:06, Gert Doering wrote:
But that's not actually true. A LIR that just humms along, never sending any request for resources, never opening a ticket will cause nearly no cost - while a LIR that sends in a question every 5 days will cause quite a bit of cost. Independent of the number of resources they have.
Back in the day, a "large LIR" would inevitably send in more requests than a "small LIR" - but since nobody can get extra resources after their last /22, this is no longer true.
So, if *cost* is the concern, "startup LIRs that request their first /22" are actually the ones that need most (human) resources, not "old LIRs that have all they will ever get, and never ask for more". Looking at the training department, who do you think will need more training? Old and experienced LIRs, or startups?
Database costs, housing, electricity are mostly the same, no matter how many resources a LIR has. Gert,
While human cost is important (56% of total), it's not the only cost. A big old LIR having a /11 (or similar) that fills the DB with 100K objects (growing at 10 per week) does generate some indirect work (including FTEs), much more than an new LIR that will rarely have more than 50 objects.
... And while the service fee accounts for most of the revenue - 77.5%, set-up fees account for other 19% of revenue and are supposed to cover typical use of a new member (checks, exchanging documents, allocating 1 x IPv4, 1 x IPv6 and 1 x ASN - procedures largely simplified recently, and not to forget 2 free RIPE meeting tickets that I'm not sure so many members use).
According to the financial reports member fee's only make up 66% of the entire budget, another 18% come from the setup fee's. Sponsors, donations etc bring in about 2% and you get another 9% from 1 time 'New' member fees. The other 5% comes from Independent INR's and Re-opening fee's. Going further in, Personnel costs are 59% of RIPEs budget, this is 133 Full time employees. Wide grand generalization but average cost per employee is nearing 100,000 EUR (obviously some make more than others) Kinda heavy on the employee costs IMO but as long as they do their job and do it well not a huge concern in the grand scheme of things since they received 5,000 kEUR more than necessary last year.
I would like to have some information of the workload required in order to perform transfers (price = ZERO) and M&A (or what's left of it) which costs (the LIRs concerned) between (almost) zero and 3/4 of the yearly fee (depending on the quarter it has been performed in).
This would be interesting to see, I bet it wouldn't be as high as one thinks. Few hundred EUR i bet.
And then there's the issue of non-voting members. Not the ones that have less than 6 months at the GM, but those that are "multiple LIRs per organisation". While some legal requirements are involved, one may easily think about "taxation without representation".
I'm on the fence about multiple LIR's, I can understand it from a business / brand / tax purpose. But I do think it's been quite abused just to bleed out the last resources.
And sorry to bring this here, but with a policy proposal in the discussion phase (2016-03) that aims (among other things) to add some form of segregation between LIRs based on what they can do with resources received from RIPE NCC, differentiated service fees starts making more sense.
Besides, RIPE NCC had differentiated service fees in some form or another for about 20 years (until 2012). Since then (barely 4 years) membership count increased by more than 50%; voting members count should not be far from that.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 13:55, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Radu,
Can I ask where you found these numbers?
Financials come from here : https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2016/draft-rip... LIR count from here : https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs (approximation, probably more precise data could be obtained from past GM's reports) -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:15:44PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
- The Charging Scheme model that is decided upon should be applicable for several years. - There should be stable fees per member. - A small number of members should not pay most of the membership fees.
out of interest, how would a CS that charges members according to the amount of resources affect a return of excess reserves, were that to happen again? Would the amount to be returned have to be calculated proportionally to the membership fee of the individual member or would the return be the same for everyone like the last time - which amounts to a redistribution from larger to smaller members? Kind Regards, Sascha Luck
On Thu Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:39PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
out of interest, how would a CS that charges members according to the amount of resources affect a return of excess reserves, were that to happen again? Would the amount to be returned have to be calculated proportionally to the membership fee of the individual member or would the return be the same for everyone like the last time
I expect they'd try and find a fair or reasonable method
- which amounts to a redistribution from larger to smaller members?
In no way is it ever that. When charges were not flat small ones never paid more than large and large ones have likely been members a long time so large have invested more in RIPE than small. If it's even then it's likely a redistribution from large to small, more so for the scammers joining for free with a legacy /29 they rented for a month brandon
participants (25)
-
Arash Naderpour -
Arjan van der Oest -
Bastien Schils -
Brandon Butterworth -
Carlos Friacas -
Chris Smith -
Damian Wójcik -
Daniel Pearson -
Fabien SCHENKELS -
Fearghas Mckay -
Floris Bos -
Gert Doering -
James Blessing -
Lu Heng -
Nigel Titley -
Paul Webb -
Piet Honkoop -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
REG ID: pl.skonet -
Rob Golding -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Silvan Gebhardt -
Silvan M. Gebhardt
-
Tim Armstrong -
XT Global Networks Ltd.