Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Dear Simon-Jan, * thanks for the update on the charging schema and the updated calculator! These models still introduce charges for ASNs, the questions on the "why?" has been raised multiple times and I haven't seen any explanation for that. Did I miss it? I think a transfer fee makes sense as tranfers create a lot of (paper)work for the RIPE NCC. What puzzles me is that with a /29 IPv6 allocation one ends up in category 3 (instead of cat 2 with /32). Given I was pushed to take a /29 allocation - instead of the /32 I requested - by the RIPE NCC, and only accepted the "upsell" to stop the back and forth with 24h delay and it didn't make a big difference at the time, this feels wrong now. If this were to becomer reality I would expect quite some LIRs opening tickets with the RIPE NCC to return their "extranous" IPv6 space (above /32), which I would expect to create some toil on the RIPE NCC. With this version I think option A would be the least bad option, but also hard to accept. Best, Max Anno domini 2023 Simon-Jan Haytink scripsit:
Dear RIPE NCC members,
I want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation so far on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2024 and the model we should use for the coming years.
We can now share three draft models that we developed based on input from the members on the Members Discuss mailing list and in the Charging Scheme Open House, as well as from the discussions at the recent Executive Board Meeting.
The result is that we are proposing three draft charging scheme models: one category-based and two that are based on the previous "one LIR account, one fee" model. We hope to receive feedback on these models by 19 April so the Executive Board can propose the final versions on 26 April. The members will then vote on those three models at the upcoming General Meeting on 24-26 May.
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new...
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
On 26 April, the final versions of the charging schemes that members will vote on will be published for the members to consider and discuss. If you have comments on the draft charging schemes, we therefore ask you to comment on the members-discuss mailing list by 19 April so we have time to incorporate any feedback if necessary.
Importantly, we ask all members to register for the RIPE NCC General Meeting where the final decision will be in your hands. Register to participate and vote at: https://my.ripe.net/#/meetings/active
Simon-Jan Haytink Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC
-- Friends are relatives you make for yourself.
Hi,
These models still introduce charges for ASNs, the questions on the "why?" has been raised multiple times and I haven't seen any explanation for that. Did I miss it?
This one can be answered from a policy point of view. When https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2007-02 was introduced, it created a system where Provider Independent resource (which include ASNs) holders would pay a small yearly fee to keep the resources. This caused automatic clean-up of abandoned resources, as the fees would stop getting paid. Unfortunately (in my eyes) the RIPE NCC never charged that small fee for ASNs, preventing that automatic clean-up from working effectively. It also was one of the reasons that https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-03 never made it: without a fee attached to an ASN it was felt that someone could overload the RIPE NCC with ASN requests (either out of ignorance or out of malice). A per-ASN fee would be an effective limiter on that. So as far as I’m concerned, adding a fee per ASN is a good thing, and maybe makes it possible to revive 2014-03 again! Cheers, Sander
Hello Sander, On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 23:56 +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
So as far as I’m concerned, adding a fee per ASN is a good thing, and maybe makes it possible to revive 2014-03 again!
I do not agree with such an opinion. Since we have AS32, aut-num are not scarce resource. There is no real need to "take back" those resurces if it's unused. Therefore I would prefer to stay the way we are, at least for the ASN which are already assigned. Clément
Hi, On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Clement Cavadore wrote:
On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 23:56 +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
So as far as I???m concerned, adding a fee per ASN is a good thing, and maybe makes it possible to revive 2014-03 again!
I do not agree with such an opinion. Since we have AS32, aut-num are not scarce resource. There is no real need to "take back" those resurces if it's unused.
We expect the RIPE NCC to keep track on where resources are - so the more ASNs are "handed out like they are free", the more work *and thus costs* we create for the NCC in future years. So a reclaim mechanism is required - the real question is, of course, what that mechanism should be. Pay NCC staff to go out and ask LIRs "is this ASN still in use? is the data accurate? can you return it?", or create an incentive for them to come back voluntarily.
Therefore I would prefer to stay the way we are, at least for the ASN which are already assigned.
Of course this would also mean "the 1-2 million not charged to ASN holders would need to be paid by everyone else". TANSTAAFL. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer 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 Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:30 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
So a reclaim mechanism is required - the real question is, of course, what that mechanism should be. Pay NCC staff to go out and ask LIRs "is this ASN still in use? is the data accurate? can you return it?", or create an incentive for them to come back voluntarily.
Agree. But AFAIK, RIPE NCC already does this kind of mechanism for ASN which are not seen on the DFZ. They ask if it's in use, and why it's not seen on the DFZ (and there are legit use case, for example for IXP route- server ASN, or for out of internet routing domains). But changing the billing rules for non-scarce resources seems a bit too rough, IMHO. Best, -- Clément Cavadore
Hi, On 4/18/23 16:37, Clement Cavadore wrote:
On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:30 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
So a reclaim mechanism is required - the real question is, of course, what that mechanism should be. Pay NCC staff to go out and ask LIRs "is this ASN still in use? is the data accurate? can you return it?", or create an incentive for them to come back voluntarily.
Agree.
But AFAIK, RIPE NCC already does this kind of mechanism for ASN which are not seen on the DFZ. They ask if it's in use, and why it's not seen on the DFZ (and there are legit use case, for example for IXP route- server ASN, or for out of internet routing domains). But changing the billing rules for non-scarce resources seems a bit too rough, IMHO.
Fully agree here. Cheers, Max
Hi, On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 04:37:43PM +0200, Clement Cavadore wrote:
On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:30 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
So a reclaim mechanism is required - the real question is, of course, what that mechanism should be. Pay NCC staff to go out and ask LIRs "is this ASN still in use? is the data accurate? can you return it?", or create an incentive for them to come back voluntarily.
Agree.
But AFAIK, RIPE NCC already does this kind of mechanism for ASN which are not seen on the DFZ. They ask if it's in use, and why it's not seen on the DFZ (and there are legit use case, for example for IXP route- server ASN, or for out of internet routing domains). But changing the billing rules for non-scarce resources seems a bit too rough, IMHO.
The NCC does this today, and people complain that the amount of FTEs they have on the payroll is too high... so, if you want less employees, the amount of work the NCC needs to do needs to go down... (The NCC is not very aggressive about reclaiming seemingly-unused ASNs, because the AP WG told them that this should be not their primary priority - but the more ASNs are out, the more work it will still be) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer 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 18/04/2023 16:37, Clement Cavadore wrote:
But AFAIK, RIPE NCC already does this kind of mechanism for ASN which are not seen on the DFZ. They ask if it's in use, and why it's not seen on the DFZ (and there are legit use case, for example for IXP route- server ASN, or for out of internet routing domains). But changing the billing rules for non-scarce resources seems a bit too rough, IMHO.
It's not really about scarcity I think. RIPE NCC receives a lot of ASN requests per month and gets paid zero for that work, while having to continuously perform due diligence on all resources (think sanctions check). Kind regards, Sebastien Brossier
Hi, On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:56:30PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
Unfortunately (in my eyes) the RIPE NCC never charged that small fee for ASNs
I do remember differently... for a few years, there was an ASN charge, but at some ENOG meeting there was a big hubbub about the ASN charge, and the NCC manamgement promised to "take care of it", and then it was gone. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
These models still introduce charges for ASNs, the questions on the "why?" has been raised multiple times and I haven't seen any explanation for that. Did I miss it?
This might all be my fault :-) - so let me explain. We currently do not have a good reclaim mechanism for ASN, and I am absolutely convinced we do want one - while there is no shortage of ASNs, we have a responsibility on properly keeping track on "where are those?", and the effort for that grows with the number of ASNs handed out, especially if they become unused and nobody really knows anymore. So option 1, the NCC regularily comes asking ("does anyone in your company know if AS196631 is still in use?"). Option 2, you find a financial incentive to make people return ASNs that are no longer needed, because they find the yearly monetary transfer annoying. I am convinced that a charge around 50 EUR is a reasonable thing to add - it's low enough that it is not really noticeable for someone who really need a public ASN, as in "takes part of global BGP, has infrastructure, etc", while at the same time annoying enough so you want to get rid of it if you do no longer need the ASN. I've never done the math on "how does this influence the NCC budget?" - but assuming some 20.000 "RIPE" ASNs out there, and also assuming 50 EUR/year, this would be a million EUR/year, which otherwise would have to be part of the member fees. So, while this was explicitly never my intention ("lower our member fees by making other people pay for their ASN"), it does have an effect - ASN fees and PI fees can be billed "onwards" toward the customer, while the regular LIR fee is "mine to keep"... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On 4/18/23 14:35, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
These models still introduce charges for ASNs, the questions on the "why?" has been raised multiple times and I haven't seen any explanation for that. Did I miss it?
This might all be my fault :-) - so let me explain. We currently do not have a good reclaim mechanism for ASN, and I am absolutely convinced we do want one - while there is no shortage of ASNs, we have a responsibility on properly keeping track on "where are those?", and the effort for that grows with the number of ASNs handed out, especially if they become unused and nobody really knows anymore.
So option 1, the NCC regularily comes asking ("does anyone in your company know if AS196631 is still in use?"). Option 2, you find a financial incentive to make people return ASNs that are no longer needed, because they find the yearly monetary transfer annoying.
I am convinced that a charge around 50 EUR is a reasonable thing to add - it's low enough that it is not really noticeable for someone who really need a public ASN, as in "takes part of global BGP, has infrastructure, etc", while at the same time annoying enough so you want to get rid of it if you do no longer need the ASN.
If that's the argument here, than we should also introduce a charge for IPv6 resources because all of the above applies there too. It's not a scarce resource but we should keep track of it, and if it's not used it should be returned, no? It could even be argued that the charge for IPv6 resources should be much higher as the RIPE NCC needs to check much more information including assignments made to end sites (e.g. as part of ARC). To be clear: I do *not* suggest we do that, I rather suggest we do not reintroduce this for ASNs.
I've never done the math on "how does this influence the NCC budget?" - but assuming some 20.000 "RIPE" ASNs out there, and also assuming 50 EUR/year, this would be a million EUR/year, which otherwise would have to be part of the member fees. So, while this was explicitly never my intention ("lower our member fees by making other people pay for their ASN"), it does have an effect - ASN fees and PI fees can be billed "onwards" toward the customer, while the regular LIR fee is "mine to keep"...
Well the financial bit is another conversation. I've seen a lot of push back here on increasing the fees and it seems a lot of folks would rather like to see where spending could be reduced. But let's keep those conversations separate. Cheers, Max
Hi, On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 09:07:08PM +0200, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
If that's the argument here, than we should also introduce a charge for IPv6 resources because all of the above applies there too. It's not a scarce resource but we should keep track of it, and if it's not used it should be returned, no?
Already in place - IPv6 resources are either PI (50 EUR/piece charge exists) or PA, tied to LIR accounts, with LIR fees. (Yes, there is no *extra* fee for IPv6 PA blocks, and I think that's a feature - the goals "keep track of resources" and "incentivize *end users* to return resources they no longer need" are both met) [..]
I've never done the math on "how does this influence the NCC budget?" - but assuming some 20.000 "RIPE" ASNs out there, and also assuming 50 EUR/year, this would be a million EUR/year, which otherwise would have to be part of the member fees. So, while this was explicitly never my intention ("lower our member fees by making other people pay for their ASN"), it does have an effect - ASN fees and PI fees can be billed "onwards" toward the customer, while the regular LIR fee is "mine to keep"...
Well the financial bit is another conversation. I've seen a lot of push back here on increasing the fees and it seems a lot of folks would rather like to see where spending could be reduced. But let's keep those conversations separate.
Indeed, that's a separate conversation. But if we do have agreement on some sort of NCC budget, the question remains "how is that budget financed", and "fee for ASNs" would inevitably lower the LIR fees (and vice versa), to reach the same total budget. TANSTAAFL :-) - if you want ASNs to be free, the money needs to come from somewhere else. (Reducing the budget will still not make things "free for all") Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, A few thoughts… 😊 There isn't a 2024 budget proposal [externally] yet as that is something that belongs to some process which seems to only start in the fall. However, wording from RIPE NCC imply there will be a 5 - 12% increase for FY2024E. Thus, there seems to be [internal] preparatory work for the 2024 budget already now. I mean, how else would they know the band of increases? NCC (at least externally) seems to model their operations, from a financial perspective, as "we have this pot of money, we need to spend it somehow". Some (I will avoid using the word "many") of the discussants in this thread (or the previous ones in March) have opined that the charging model and budget should be more tied together, including myself. Of course, some others have opined that it is good they are separate, and we should not confuse one with the other or combine them. Everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it. For what it is worth, I think that separating them is not ideal. Most forecasting in an integrated three-statement financial model is based on estimated revenue streams and estimated expenses that then drive the income statement, balance sheet and cashflow statements. If modeling expenses are disconnected from the rest of the model, it creates a discontinuity in the forecasting model. Things like what should RIPE NCC spend money on, how much can it spend and for the benefit of whom should be valid and acceptable questions when doing forecasting. Particularly, as there is one significant source of income (members) and a multitude of small streams where that revenue goes to. On the other hand, should there be any hurdles to meet or exceed for something to proceed year on year or can something continue forever if there is money to spend? Yes, technically there is more than one source of revenue but since 98% comes from membership fees and sign-up fees, the remaining 2% is not very material in my opinion. As for the models that have been presented and some have discussed as to what is and what isn’t fair. Particularly model A in its original or present version, does not have any kind of fairness – quite the opposite. It seems more of a model where those who have [resources] pay for the services of those who do not have [resources]. Those without resources – the 2/3 receiving a lower invoice – will pay well under the average expense for a LIR (when contrasting to FY2022 realized figures) or less than 1480 euro. How is this fair? It is not a big stretch to imagine, that with the FY2023E budget increase compared to FY2022, AND when there have been a multitude of cautions about costs having gone up, etc. AND there have been LIR closings (imminent decrease of some revenue), that the average expense attributable for a LIR in FY2023 will be higher than for FY2022 and again higher in FY2024.. So, it looks like won’t be getting any better in the future with the current trend, either. Those who will have to pay for this include the ones who are not in the lowest charging categories but the LIRs in category 4-10. Why should organizations in these categories subsidize smaller LIRs w.r.t RIPE fees? How is this fair or even reasonable? Certainly, there isn’t any benefit of having to paying more. We don’t even get a T-shirt or a trendy hoodie. Is this a Europe-wide socioeconomic experiment on fixing some kind of perceived inequality and disparity of IP address distribution? Btw, can someone explain – beyond the word itself – what 4.3 million spent on consultancy in FY2022 is? In the 2023 budget this is 5.1 million. How many contractors does this equal to? It sounds like an awful amount of people doing professional services for NCC. I mean, in addition to the 20 million fully loaded personnel costs for 172 FTEs, of course. Comments and thoughts welcome, as always. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 23:47 To: Maximilian Wilhelm <max@rfc2324.org> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Hi, On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 09:07:08PM +0200, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
If that's the argument here, than we should also introduce a charge for
IPv6 resources because all of the above applies there too. It's not a
scarce resource but we should keep track of it, and if it's not used it
should be returned, no?
Already in place - IPv6 resources are either PI (50 EUR/piece charge exists) or PA, tied to LIR accounts, with LIR fees. (Yes, there is no *extra* fee for IPv6 PA blocks, and I think that's a feature - the goals "keep track of resources" and "incentivize *end users* to return resources they no longer need" are both met) [..]
I've never done the math on "how does this influence the NCC budget?" - but
assuming some 20.000 "RIPE" ASNs out there, and also assuming 50 EUR/year,
this would be a million EUR/year, which otherwise would have to be part
of the member fees. So, while this was explicitly never my intention
("lower our member fees by making other people pay for their ASN"), it
does have an effect - ASN fees and PI fees can be billed "onwards" toward
the customer, while the regular LIR fee is "mine to keep"...
Well the financial bit is another conversation. I've seen a lot of push
back here on increasing the fees and it seems a lot of folks would
rather like to see where spending could be reduced. But let's keep those
conversations separate.
Indeed, that's a separate conversation. But if we do have agreement on some sort of NCC budget, the question remains "how is that budget financed", and "fee for ASNs" would inevitably lower the LIR fees (and vice versa), to reach the same total budget. TANSTAAFL :-) - if you want ASNs to be free, the money needs to come from somewhere else. (Reducing the budget will still not make things "free for all") Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi *, I'm still puzzled for what the _Membership_ fee is intented to be used for. First of all, there's the budget that needs to be collected from the members. Quoting [1]: "This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations." Well, yes, but: if the revenue is being reduced, where's the appropriate call to action to reduce the _spending_ as well? RIPE NCC started as an RIR — and added a lot of services[2] over time, not all of those vital for running an RIR. Like others already mentioned, changing the charging scheme *without* alingning the *cost structure* as well, at times where there will be less and less members, is the wrong way around. There have to be severe cuts in the 2024 budget of RIPE NCC, as the number of members will decline — unless, of course, the remaining members are eager to increase their fees significantly. (As far as I followed the threads here, paying more seems not to be the most popular option though.) Therefore this discussion about "Charging Scheme Models 2024" is taking place at the wrong time. The Membership is to be provided with cost cutting options for the budget 2024 really soon now, and the current charging scheme is to be adjusted to collect the 2024's budget. _Then_ a discussion can be held about how, from 2025 onwards, the RIPE NCC and its core (Registration Services, RIPE DB, ...) and additional services (RPKI, K-Root, RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat, RIS, etc.) shall be financed. Since TANSTAAFL was mentioned already: if the time of a single _Membership_ fee shall be over, RIPE NCC will need to extend the model of a "Base Membership fee plus per-service fees" (latest "Model A") to the non-core services offered as well — e. g. RPKI comes with a 2023 toll of 8 FTE, RIPE Atlas of 9, and so on. Yes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, hence the costs for e. g. RIPE Atlas mustn't be paid by all members, whether they utilize it or not. Does the RIR RIPE NCC have to do research? No, it's not core RIR business, hence not to be paid from the _Membership_ fee. It's nice to have these services, but why does a RIR run the K-Root? This has to be taken to the Membership to decide whether they still see a need for it — and therefore want to cover those expenses via their Membership fee. So, first there need to be a discussion on what of the current operations and services to drop — and then how the remainng, _necessary_, money for running this RIR shall be collected from it's members. I'm still in favor for one, single, Membership Fee that covers for the services the Members are willing to pay for, i. e. the current model. The only other alternative would be to have a "Base Membership fee" of 250-500 EUR and then count any "usable ressource" (/24 v4, /48 v6, ASN) and give it a "Service fee". Like "Model A", but without fiddling with "Categories". Just count allocated ressources and bill them. That solves the issues with "why does Incumbent X pay even less than me", once and for all. Basic LIR stuff should be covered by the "Base Membership fee"; M&A related additional work as well as Transfers should be billed separately, the suggested 1000 EUR (new "Model A") should be per case. Receiving (temporary or permanent) allocations should be subject to an "Allocation fee" — not only v4 PA, but v6 PA as well. Am 18.04.23 um 22:46 schrieb Gert Doering:
If that's the argument here, than we should also introduce a charge for IPv6 resources because all of the above applies there too. It's not a scarce resource but we should keep track of it, and if it's not used it should be returned, no? Already in place - IPv6 resources are either PI (50 EUR/piece charge exists) or PA, tied to LIR accounts, with LIR fees. (Yes, there is no *extra* fee for IPv6 PA blocks, and I think that's a feature - the goals "keep track of resources" and "incentivize *end users* to return resources they no longer need" are both met)
Why only end users? There's no incentive to return additional /29 or /32 received from merging LIRs, and AFAICS the act of transferring these allocations is free as well. And the more stray allocations there are, the more works for the RIPE NCC to keep track. What's true for (few) ASNs must be true for (lots of) v6 prefixes as well.
[…] does have an effect - ASN fees and PI fees can be billed "onwards" toward the customer, while the regular LIR fee is "mine to keep"...
The LIR fee – actual the RIPE NCC Membership fee – is part of the cost of running your business. As such, it's not "for you to keep," but being paid back by your customers.
Well the financial bit is another conversation. I've seen a lot of push back here on increasing the fees and it seems a lot of folks would rather like to see where spending could be reduced. But let's keep those conversations separate. Indeed, that's a separate conversation.
Yes, but one that needs to be happening _before_ talking about new charging schemes. RIPE NCCs ever expanding membership base isn't expanding anymore, hence RIPE NCC needs to cut down costs as well.
But if we do have agreement on some sort of NCC budget, the question remains "how is that budget financed", and "fee for ASNs" would inevitably lower the LIR fees (and vice versa), to reach the same total budget.
Don't stop at ASNs then; we can put a price tag on every ressource managed by the RIPE NCC, and a fully "usage based" charging scheme would create a lot of these "incentives" to get rid of no longer required ressources. And it's the only other "fair" option besides the current model. After all, _we_ became an LIR as we needed v4 space. Yes, _we_ need delegation of the related in-addr.arpa zones. Do we need K-Root, RIPE Atlas or Community Building and Member Engagement [3]? Don't think so. _We_ just need a well run RIR. But certainly not at ever increasing costs! Regards, -kai [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha... [2] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/list-of-ripe-ncc-services [3] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf -- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/ Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
Hi, the RIPE NCC’s budget had doubled in the past few years. It’s clear that they won’t have enough money for all activities if the membership decreases… they knew this a decade ago, but instead of building a sound business, HPH keeps coming to us every few years with proposals for a new charging scheme that makes nobody happy. except him and the board of an RIR that needs to spend €40m/year (double than the other RIRs - ARIN is at about $20m, LACNIC - $10m, APNIC - $21m, only the NCC needs $45m) and increase budget with 10-15%/year. how much of the travel budget is really needed. how much does a members lunch cost? why do I need to pay for dozens of these lunches between the NCC and other companies? the NCC still pays dozens of consultants, chair(s), possibly over 250 people. when will it start paying contributors to policies, mailing lists, community members? at least when it has thousands of ‘employees’, we’ll know what the money is spent on. (/s) what’s the cost of atlas? has it ever been self sustained as it was promised more than a decade ago? how much money is spent on training and the certified professionals platform? is it worth it, how many members use it? how much money is that project losing every year? why does the NCC need ~200 employees? why, when everyone is cutting jobs, is the NCC adding 2% more FTEs and only God knows how many more consultants? I could go on and on with ways to cut costs… but I doubt that’s what HPH or the Board want to hear. They need another 12% increase next year! I keep raising this point but it is again ignored. So, unless the NCC comes with a balanced budget cut, I will reject any new charging scheme and will recommend every member to do so, maybe they’ll get the message after they see the voting results. elvis On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 06:03 Kai Siering <k.siering@team.mail.de> wrote:
Hi *,
I'm still puzzled for what the _Membership_ fee is intented to be used for.
First of all, there's the budget that needs to be collected from the members.
Quoting [1]: "This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations."
Well, yes, but: if the revenue is being reduced, where's the appropriate call to action to reduce the _spending_ as well? RIPE NCC started as an RIR — and added a lot of services[2] over time, not all of those vital for running an RIR.
Like others already mentioned, changing the charging scheme *without* alingning the *cost structure* as well, at times where there will be less and less members, is the wrong way around. There have to be severe cuts in the 2024 budget of RIPE NCC, as the number of members will decline — unless, of course, the remaining members are eager to increase their fees significantly. (As far as I followed the threads here, paying more seems not to be the most popular option though.)
Therefore this discussion about "Charging Scheme Models 2024" is taking place at the wrong time. The Membership is to be provided with cost cutting options for the budget 2024 really soon now, and the current charging scheme is to be adjusted to collect the 2024's budget.
_Then_ a discussion can be held about how, from 2025 onwards, the RIPE NCC and its core (Registration Services, RIPE DB, ...) and additional services (RPKI, K-Root, RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat, RIS, etc.) shall be financed.
Since TANSTAAFL was mentioned already: if the time of a single _Membership_ fee shall be over, RIPE NCC will need to extend the model of a "Base Membership fee plus per-service fees" (latest "Model A") to the non-core services offered as well — e. g. RPKI comes with a 2023 toll of 8 FTE, RIPE Atlas of 9, and so on. Yes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, hence the costs for e. g. RIPE Atlas mustn't be paid by all members, whether they utilize it or not. Does the RIR RIPE NCC have to do research? No, it's not core RIR business, hence not to be paid from the _Membership_ fee. It's nice to have these services, but why does a RIR run the K-Root? This has to be taken to the Membership to decide whether they still see a need for it — and therefore want to cover those expenses via their Membership fee.
So, first there need to be a discussion on what of the current operations and services to drop — and then how the remainng, _necessary_, money for running this RIR shall be collected from it's members.
I'm still in favor for one, single, Membership Fee that covers for the services the Members are willing to pay for, i. e. the current model.
The only other alternative would be to have a "Base Membership fee" of 250-500 EUR and then count any "usable ressource" (/24 v4, /48 v6, ASN) and give it a "Service fee". Like "Model A", but without fiddling with "Categories". Just count allocated ressources and bill them. That solves the issues with "why does Incumbent X pay even less than me", once and for all. Basic LIR stuff should be covered by the "Base Membership fee"; M&A related additional work as well as Transfers should be billed separately, the suggested 1000 EUR (new "Model A") should be per case. Receiving (temporary or permanent) allocations should be subject to an "Allocation fee" — not only v4 PA, but v6 PA as well.
If that's the argument here, than we should also introduce a charge for IPv6 resources because all of the above applies there too. It's not a scarce resource but we should keep track of it, and if it's not used it should be returned, no? Already in place - IPv6 resources are either PI (50 EUR/piece charge exists) or PA, tied to LIR accounts, with LIR fees. (Yes, there is no *extra* fee for IPv6 PA blocks, and I think that's a feature - the goals "keep track of resources" and "incentivize *end users* to return resources
Am 18.04.23 um 22:46 schrieb Gert Doering: they no longer need" are both met)
Why only end users? There's no incentive to return additional /29 or /32 received from merging LIRs, and AFAICS the act of transferring these allocations is free as well. And the more stray allocations there are, the more works for the RIPE NCC to keep track. What's true for (few) ASNs must be true for (lots of) v6 prefixes as well.
[…] does have an effect - ASN fees and PI fees can be billed "onwards" toward the customer, while the regular LIR fee is "mine to keep"...
The LIR fee – actual the RIPE NCC Membership fee – is part of the cost of running your business. As such, it's not "for you to keep," but being paid back by your customers.
Well the financial bit is another conversation. I've seen a lot of push back here on increasing the fees and it seems a lot of folks would rather like to see where spending could be reduced. But let's keep those conversations separate. Indeed, that's a separate conversation.
Yes, but one that needs to be happening _before_ talking about new charging schemes. RIPE NCCs ever expanding membership base isn't expanding anymore, hence RIPE NCC needs to cut down costs as well.
But if we do have agreement on some sort of NCC budget, the question remains "how is that budget financed", and "fee for ASNs" would inevitably lower the LIR fees (and vice versa), to reach the same total budget.
Don't stop at ASNs then; we can put a price tag on every ressource managed by the RIPE NCC, and a fully "usage based" charging scheme would create a lot of these "incentives" to get rid of no longer required ressources. And it's the only other "fair" option besides the current model.
After all, _we_ became an LIR as we needed v4 space. Yes, _we_ need delegation of the related in-addr.arpa zones. Do we need K-Root, RIPE Atlas or Community Building and Member Engagement [3]? Don't think so. _We_ just need a well run RIR. But certainly not at ever increasing costs!
Regards, -kai
[1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha... [2] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/list-of-ripe-ncc-services [3] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf
-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer
mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh
Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock
Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/elvis%40v4escrow.net
-- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible.
I totally agree on that. AI impleentation cuts internal costs dramatically, meanwhile RIPE NCC tends to increase the budgets.
Hi,
the RIPE NCC’s budget had doubled in the past few years. It’s clear that they won’t have enough money for all activities if the membership decreases… they knew this a decade ago, but instead of building a sound business, HPH keeps coming to us every few years with proposals for a new charging scheme that makes nobody happy.
except him and the board of an RIR that needs to spend €40m/year (double than the other RIRs - ARIN is at about $20m, LACNIC - $10m, APNIC - $21m, only the NCC needs $45m) and increase budget with 10-15%/year.
how much of the travel budget is really needed. how much does a members lunch cost? why do I need to pay for dozens of these lunches between the NCC and other companies?
the NCC still pays dozens of consultants, chair(s), possibly over 250 people. when will it start paying contributors to policies, mailing lists, community members? at least when it has thousands of ‘employees’, we’ll know what the money is spent on. (/s)
what’s the cost of atlas? has it ever been self sustained as it was promised more than a decade ago?
how much money is spent on training and the certified professionals platform? is it worth it, how many members use it? how much money is that project losing every year?
why does the NCC need ~200 employees? why, when everyone is cutting jobs, is the NCC adding 2% more FTEs and only God knows how many more consultants?
I could go on and on with ways to cut costs… but I doubt that’s what HPH or the Board want to hear. They need another 12% increase next year!
I keep raising this point but it is again ignored. So, unless the NCC comes with a balanced budget cut, I will reject any new charging scheme and will recommend every member to do so, maybe they’ll get the message after they see the voting results.
elvis
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 06:03 Kai Siering <k.siering@team.mail.de> wrote:
Hi *,
I'm still puzzled for what the _Membership_ fee is intented to be used for.
First of all, there's the budget that needs to be collected from the members.
Quoting [1]: "This means that the income the RIPE NCC receives will be reduced by a significant amount and we will need to ensure that our charging model allows us to collect the revenue required to maintain our operations."
Well, yes, but: if the revenue is being reduced, where's the appropriate call to action to reduce the _spending_ as well? RIPE NCC started as an RIR — and added a lot of services[2] over time, not all of those vital for running an RIR.
Like others already mentioned, changing the charging scheme *without* alingning the *cost structure* as well, at times where there will be less and less members, is the wrong way around. There have to be severe cuts in the 2024 budget of RIPE NCC, as the number of members will decline — unless, of course, the remaining members are eager to increase their fees significantly. (As far as I followed the threads here, paying more seems not to be the most popular option though.)
Therefore this discussion about "Charging Scheme Models 2024" is taking place at the wrong time. The Membership is to be provided with cost cutting options for the budget 2024 really soon now, and the current charging scheme is to be adjusted to collect the 2024's budget.
_Then_ a discussion can be held about how, from 2025 onwards, the RIPE NCC and its core (Registration Services, RIPE DB, ...) and additional services (RPKI, K-Root, RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat, RIS, etc.) shall be financed.
Since TANSTAAFL was mentioned already: if the time of a single _Membership_ fee shall be over, RIPE NCC will need to extend the model of a "Base Membership fee plus per-service fees" (latest "Model A") to the non-core services offered as well — e. g. RPKI comes with a 2023 toll of 8 FTE, RIPE Atlas of 9, and so on. Yes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, hence the costs for e. g. RIPE Atlas mustn't be paid by all members, whether they utilize it or not. Does the RIR RIPE NCC have to do research? No, it's not core RIR business, hence not to be paid from the _Membership_ fee. It's nice to have these services, but why does a RIR run the K-Root? This has to be taken to the Membership to decide whether they still see a need for it — and therefore want to cover those expenses via their Membership fee.
So, first there need to be a discussion on what of the current operations and services to drop — and then how the remainng, _necessary_, money for running this RIR shall be collected from it's members.
I'm still in favor for one, single, Membership Fee that covers for the services the Members are willing to pay for, i. e. the current model.
The only other alternative would be to have a "Base Membership fee" of 250-500 EUR and then count any "usable ressource" (/24 v4, /48 v6, ASN) and give it a "Service fee". Like "Model A", but without fiddling with "Categories". Just count allocated ressources and bill them. That solves the issues with "why does Incumbent X pay even less than me", once and for all. Basic LIR stuff should be covered by the "Base Membership fee"; M&A related additional work as well as Transfers should be billed separately, the suggested 1000 EUR (new "Model A") should be per case. Receiving (temporary or permanent) allocations should be subject to an "Allocation fee" — not only v4 PA, but v6 PA as well.
Am 18.04.23 um 22:46 schrieb Gert Doering:
If that's the argument here, than we should also introduce a charge for IPv6 resources because all of the above applies there too. It's not a scarce resource but we should keep track of it, and if it's not used it should be returned, no? Already in place - IPv6 resources are either PI (50 EUR/piece charge exists) or PA, tied to LIR accounts, with LIR fees. (Yes, there is no *extra* fee for IPv6 PA blocks, and I think that's a feature - the goals "keep track of resources" and "incentivize *end users* to return resources they no longer need" are both met)
Why only end users? There's no incentive to return additional /29 or /32 received from merging LIRs, and AFAICS the act of transferring these allocations is free as well. And the more stray allocations there are, the more works for the RIPE NCC to keep track. What's true for (few) ASNs must be true for (lots of) v6 prefixes as well.
[…] does have an effect - ASN fees and PI fees can be billed "onwards" toward the customer, while the regular LIR fee is "mine to keep"...
The LIR fee – actual the RIPE NCC Membership fee – is part of the cost of running your business. As such, it's not "for you to keep," but being paid back by your customers.
Well the financial bit is another conversation. I've seen a lot of push back here on increasing the fees and it seems a lot of folks would rather like to see where spending could be reduced. But let's keep those conversations separate. Indeed, that's a separate conversation.
Yes, but one that needs to be happening _before_ talking about new charging schemes. RIPE NCCs ever expanding membership base isn't expanding anymore, hence RIPE NCC needs to cut down costs as well.
But if we do have agreement on some sort of NCC budget, the question remains "how is that budget financed", and "fee for ASNs" would inevitably lower the LIR fees (and vice versa), to reach the same total budget.
Don't stop at ASNs then; we can put a price tag on every ressource managed by the RIPE NCC, and a fully "usage based" charging scheme would create a lot of these "incentives" to get rid of no longer required ressources. And it's the only other "fair" option besides the current model.
After all, _we_ became an LIR as we needed v4 space. Yes, _we_ need delegation of the related in-addr.arpa zones. Do we need K-Root, RIPE Atlas or Community Building and Member Engagement [3]? Don't think so. _We_ just need a well run RIR. But certainly not at ever increasing costs!
Regards, -kai
[1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha... [2] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/list-of-ripe-ncc-services [3] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-786.pdf
-- Kai Siering Senior System Engineer
mail.de GmbH Münsterstraße 3 D-33330 Gütersloh
Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 E-Mail: k.siering@team.mail.de Web: https://mail.de/
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Fabian Bock
Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI Steuernummer 18 293 20020
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/elvis%40v4escrow.net
-- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible.
Exceptionally replying to someone in particular:
except him and the board of an RIR that needs to spend €40m/year (double than the other RIRs - ARIN is at about $20m, LACNIC - $10m, APNIC - $21m, only the NCC needs $45m) and increase budget with 10-15%/year.
It’s not fair to compare budgets. Compare membership fees. ARIN’s fees are for example higher or much higher, depending on service, while their budget is half. Apples and oranges? Michel LANNERS CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>
FWIW, ARIN does not seem to have a problem with charging larger organizations more, see https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ Does anyone know whether such large orgs have more influence with ARIN? Referring to the mail from the EB a few days ago, EB seems to be of the opinion that RIPE NCC couldn't charge recipients of larger allocations in RIPEland more than 10k because of $factors such as "these larger companies would want a greater say in the organisation’s governance as a result of their increased contribution". While on that topic, I wonder why the EB recommends option 1 and thinks that the smaller organizations would not want to have a larger say in the organization's [RIPE's] governance as a result of their increased contribution....... But sure, we can compare service fees. It seems that the imaginary LIR with IPv4 /21 + IPv4 /22 + 1 ASN + IPv6 /32 would in America, where everything is huge, pay only $1000 or 908 euro annually. If you have other resources, you're not getting charged for the price of an ASN. Kaj ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 23:57 To: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> Cc: RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Exceptionally replying to someone in particular: except him and the board of an RIR that needs to spend €40m/year (double than the other RIRs - ARIN is at about $20m, LACNIC - $10m, APNIC - $21m, only the NCC needs $45m) and increase budget with 10-15%/year. It’s not fair to compare budgets. Compare membership fees. ARIN’s fees are for example higher or much higher, depending on service, while their budget is half. Apples and oranges? Michel LANNERS CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu<mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu<https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com<https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu<https://www.lunog.lu/>
On 28.04.2023 17:40, Kaj Niemi wrote:
FWIW, ARIN does not seem to have a problem with charging larger organizations more, see https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ <https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/>
Thanks for this link. Also I've noticed that in ARIN, /20 up to and including /18 plus /32 up to and including /28 are referred as SMALL, with a fee of $2000, not $4000+ as proposed in model A.
Does anyone know whether such large orgs have more influence with ARIN? Referring to the mail from the EB a few days ago, EB seems to be of the opinion that RIPE NCC couldn't charge recipients of larger allocations in RIPEland more than 10k because of $factors such as "these larger companies would want a greater say in the organisation’s governance as a result of their increased contribution".
While on that topic, I wonder why the EB recommends option 1 and thinks that the smaller organizations would not want to have a larger say in the organization's [RIPE's] governance as a result of their increased contribution.......
But sure, we can compare service fees. It seems that the imaginary LIR with IPv4 /21 + IPv4 /22 + 1 ASN + IPv6 /32 would in America,where everything is huge, pay only $1000 or 908 euro annually. If you have other resources, you're not getting charged for the price of an ASN.
Kaj ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2023 23:57 *To:* Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> *Cc:* RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Exceptionally replying to someone in particular:
except him and the board of an RIR that needs to spend €40m/year (double than the other RIRs - ARIN is at about $20m, LACNIC - $10m, APNIC - $21m, only the NCC needs $45m) and increase budget with 10-15%/year.
It’s not fair to compare budgets. Compare membership fees. ARIN’s fees are for example higher or much higher, depending on service, while their budget is half. Apples and oranges?
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/vit%40visti.net
Hi guys,I want to use this medium to beg/ ask for your nomination of me into the ripe board this time, I have already gotten some support but i would be honoured to have the support and endorsement of all my fellow LIR on ripe, the reasons why I am running this time are these:1) Ripe NCC though claims to be a non-profit has for the past 7 years increased its billing by 35% totally ignoring the plight of small and medium LIR.2) Ripe ignores all of the complaint of small LIR to favour big businesses.3) LIR do not receive equal representations on Ripe, If you nominate me, there will be no big, large, Enterprise LIR, small and medium size LIR, every LIR would be the same , no more generalised FAQ but rather every issue presented by LIR would be handled as per the LIR: Please nominate : John Issa ErivonaTrading as “ Intigrad Technologies” As your right choice Thanks guys Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, May 2, 2023, 2:18 pm, Vitalii Zubok <vit@visti.net> wrote: On 28.04.2023 17:40, Kaj Niemi wrote:
FWIW, ARIN does not seem to have a problem with charging larger organizations more, see https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ <https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/>
Thanks for this link. Also I've noticed that in ARIN, /20 up to and including /18 plus /32 up to and including /28 are referred as SMALL, with a fee of $2000, not $4000+ as proposed in model A.
Does anyone know whether such large orgs have more influence with ARIN? Referring to the mail from the EB a few days ago, EB seems to be of the opinion that RIPE NCC couldn't charge recipients of larger allocations in RIPEland more than 10k because of $factors such as "these larger companies would want a greater say in the organisation’s governance as a result of their increased contribution".
While on that topic, I wonder why the EB recommends option 1 and thinks that the smaller organizations would not want to have a larger say in the organization's [RIPE's] governance as a result of their increased contribution.......
But sure, we can compare service fees. It seems that the imaginary LIR with IPv4 /21 + IPv4 /22 + 1 ASN + IPv6 /32 would in America,where everything is huge, pay only $1000 or 908 euro annually. If you have other resources, you're not getting charged for the price of an ASN.
Kaj ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2023 23:57 *To:* Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> *Cc:* RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Exceptionally replying to someone in particular:
except him and the board of an RIR that needs to spend €40m/year (double than the other RIRs - ARIN is at about $20m, LACNIC - $10m, APNIC - $21m, only the NCC needs $45m) and increase budget with 10-15%/year.
It’s not fair to compare budgets. Compare membership fees. ARIN’s fees are for example higher or much higher, depending on service, while their budget is half. Apples and oranges?
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/vit%40visti.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/john.erivona%40yahoo....
John You’ve stated what you have issues with but you haven’t provided any rational argument as to why we should vote for you specifically. Why you? What do you bring to the table that makes you a better choice? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of john erivona via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Date: Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 14:12 To: Vitalii Zubok <vit@visti.net>, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net>, Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>, Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> Cc: RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi guys, I want to use this medium to beg/ ask for your nomination of me into the ripe board this time, I have already gotten some support but i would be honoured to have the support and endorsement of all my fellow LIR on ripe, the reasons why I am running this time are these: 1) Ripe NCC though claims to be a non-profit has for the past 7 years increased its billing by 35% totally ignoring the plight of small and medium LIR. 2) Ripe ignores all of the complaint of small LIR to favour big businesses. 3) LIR do not receive equal representations on Ripe, If you nominate me, there will be no big, large, Enterprise LIR, small and medium size LIR, every LIR would be the same , no more generalised FAQ but rather every issue presented by LIR would be handled as per the LIR: Please nominate : John Issa Erivona Trading as “ Intigrad Technologies” As your right choice Thanks guys [Inline image] [Inline image] Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone<https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023, 2:18 pm, Vitalii Zubok <vit@visti.net> wrote: On 28.04.2023 17:40, Kaj Niemi wrote:
FWIW, ARIN does not seem to have a problem with charging larger organizations more, see https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ <https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/>
Thanks for this link. Also I've noticed that in ARIN, /20 up to and including /18 plus /32 up to and including /28 are referred as SMALL, with a fee of $2000, not $4000+ as proposed in model A.
Does anyone know whether such large orgs have more influence with ARIN? Referring to the mail from the EB a few days ago, EB seems to be of the opinion that RIPE NCC couldn't charge recipients of larger allocations in RIPEland more than 10k because of $factors such as "these larger companies would want a greater say in the organisation’s governance as a result of their increased contribution".
While on that topic, I wonder why the EB recommends option 1 and thinks that the smaller organizations would not want to have a larger say in the organization's [RIPE's] governance as a result of their increased contribution.......
But sure, we can compare service fees. It seems that the imaginary LIR with IPv4 /21 + IPv4 /22 + 1 ASN + IPv6 /32 would in America,where everything is huge, pay only $1000 or 908 euro annually. If you have other resources, you're not getting charged for the price of an ASN.
Kaj ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Michel Lanners <michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu<mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2023 23:57 *To:* Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net<mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net>> *Cc:* RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Exceptionally replying to someone in particular:
except him and the board of an RIR that needs to spend €40m/year (double than the other RIRs - ARIN is at about $20m, LACNIC - $10m, APNIC - $21m, only the NCC needs $45m) and increase budget with 10-15%/year.
It’s not fair to compare budgets. Compare membership fees. ARIN’s fees are for example higher or much higher, depending on service, while their budget is half. Apples and oranges?
*Michel LANNERS* CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E. -- Mail: michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu<mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> <mailto:michel.lanners@lu-cix.lu> Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81 LU-CIX Management G.I.E. 202, Z.A.E. Wolser F L-3290 Bettembourg lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/>
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/vit%40visti.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/john.erivona%40yahoo....
Hi,
Thanks for this link.
Also I've noticed that in ARIN, /20 up to and including /18 plus /32 up to and including /28 are referred as SMALL, with a fee of $2000, not $4000+ as proposed in model A.
What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category. Brian
What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category.
Brian
+1. This is very good point. Best regards, Jerzy Pawlus
We share this point. All long-standing SMALL LIRs which used their allocations properly along 20+ years would be penalized by model A, unless we agree to move the category boundary beyond /19+/22+/32, which used to be a standard SMALL category allocations for a decade or more. And as we can see earlier in this thread, in ARIN this is still SMALL category: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ Larger than /20, up to and including /18 + Larger than /32, up to and including /28 = Small ($2000) Regards, Vitaly Zubok On 04.05.2023 16:21, J Pawlus wrote:
What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category.
Brian
+1. This is very good point.
Best regards,
Jerzy Pawlus
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/vit%40visti.net
Hi all and specifically Brian, On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 14:57, Brian Turnbow via members-discuss < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category.
I think, it depends on how you look at it. In case you have this address space and you use it, you probably have some income from it that allows you to pay for it. In case you are not using it (or you cannot afford it), you are free to transfer parts of your address space to reduce your allocation and thus your category. This has a few consequences: It may deaggregate the address space (imagine you are transferring a /24 out of your /19) and thus increase cost for everyone. On the other hand it will potentially lower the market price for IP addresses which will lower the cost for late-comers. So one could look at model A as incentive to IPv4 conservation after the run-out. André
Justifying a supply chain originated price increase with "you probably have some income" is not a very good argument in favor of the proposed price increase. The marginal cost [to produce IPv4 addresses] has not increased. You do not get anything. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. One day the resources that you've had for quite some time become more expensive because someone decided it would be convenient to meet their budget. In the proposed model where the majority of the members would pay less, the amount they pay will be lower than the average cost per LIR. In other words, to produce the smorgasbord, the small LIRs pay less, get more and also have proportionally a larger say. The average cost per LIR will also continue rise, if forward-looking statements are to be believed, as budgeting and fees are decoupled but also because of the potential of consolidating LIRs. You should really be thinking of this as a subsidy or a transfer of wealth made possible by a fair democratic process and facilitated by the management. I think of it as an agency problem which does not seem solvable since there are too many who benefit.🙂 Kaj ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of André Grüneberg <andre.grueneberg@bcix.de> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 16:49 To: RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Hi all and specifically Brian, On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 14:57, Brian Turnbow via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> wrote: What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category. I think, it depends on how you look at it. In case you have this address space and you use it, you probably have some income from it that allows you to pay for it. In case you are not using it (or you cannot afford it), you are free to transfer parts of your address space to reduce your allocation and thus your category. This has a few consequences: It may deaggregate the address space (imagine you are transferring a /24 out of your /19) and thus increase cost for everyone. On the other hand it will potentially lower the market price for IP addresses which will lower the cost for late-comers. So one could look at model A as incentive to IPv4 conservation after the run-out. André
On 03/05/2023 18:56, Brian Turnbow via members-discuss wrote:
What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category.
Hello, Your example describes a LIR who got allocated more IPv4 than needed. In that case, they can return the extra to RIPE or sell it. This example is actually in favour of model A: more IPv4 will be made available. Sebastien Brossier
Hello, On 5/4/23 15:58, Sebastien Brossier wrote:
Your example describes a LIR who got allocated more IPv4 than needed. In that case, they can return the extra to RIPE or sell it. This example is actually in favour of model A: more IPv4 will be made available.
Wishful thinking category, but: - wobody will return them to RIPE. Why would anyone do that? no profit - you can sell it, but again - why? only one-time profit... The most likely scenario is renting. For the money for which addresses can now be rented you probably cover extra fees and you can still make money from it. Market prices will definitely not drop - there's big demand for asset in short supply and there's no reason to discount it. The extra price everyone will pay is further fragmentation of IP routing tables (and it's happening). Preventing fragmentation was one of RIPE's long-standing goals. Apparently forgotten today, money for toys are more important. And for really big holders, the price won't increase that much - they'll not need to do this. The categories in the middle are the most bitten. There won't be that many addresses released in this way, so it won't change market price. No positives with category A will take place. Just new problems. - Daniel
Hi,
On 03/05/2023 18:56, Brian Turnbow via members-discuss wrote:
What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category.
Hello,
Your example describes a LIR who got allocated more IPv4 than needed. In that case, they can return the extra to RIPE or sell it. This example is actually in favour of model A: more IPv4 will be made available.
In a perfect world where the lir rationally used the space perhaps but more likely it would force them to decide next year to A) renumber their network/change allocations made to customers and have them agree to renumber to free up a block/blocks of contiguous space B) pay more fees In either case it makes the lir costs rise. I have seen plenty of providers with a /24 per pop/router/fill in whatever with only a couple of customers assigned from each, they are used to having the space... Businesses will then plan to recoup the costs sustained and monetize the IPs not return them to ripe, so it could increase the ips being leased or sold. Brian
Hello Brian, I don't really understand your argument. So yes, if you have been a member for a long time you have received a bigger allocation. But either you use that allocation, then there's no argument. Or you don't use it - then give back what you don't need. Best regards, Andreas Grabmüller QuarIT GmbH \\ Jägerstraße 19 \\ 83308 Trostberg \\ Deutschland a.grabmueller@quarit.de \\ www.quaritec.de \\ Telefon: +49 8621 994900-0 \\ Telefax: +49 8621 994900-9 Amtsgericht Traunstein: HRB 23872 \\ Sitz: Trostberg \\ Geschäftsführer: Andreas Grabmüller \\ Ust.-ID: DE297594275 Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen: http://www.quaritec.de/agb \\ Aktuelle Preisliste: http://www.quaritec.de/preise -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Brian Turnbow via members-discuss Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2023 18:57 An: RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Hi,
Thanks for this link.
Also I've noticed that in ARIN, /20 up to and including /18 plus /32 up to and including /28 are referred as SMALL, with a fee of $2000, not $4000+ as proposed in model A.
What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category. Brian _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/a.grabmueller%40quari t.de
I understand his message quite well. For IPv6 the smallest category in proposed charging model A was moved from a /31 to a /29 because of complaints and because (in my very subjective and cynical opinion) it isn't really material to the discussion. I guess everyone got a /32 originally but RIPE reserved a /29 or so for each organization. At some point they then started asking directly whether one would like to get a /29. As the largest or equal billing category will win, the invoicing will for the majority involve their IPv4 allocations. This is the basis of the budget. If someone(s) happen to have a larger IPv6 billing category it won't be but a drop in the big pond. For IPv4, at the time of RIPE-159, the initial allocation really was a /19. I remember it well... and the assignment windows and the IP police we all loved and cherished.😉 But changing to that would ruin the billing model and, of course, this exercise. Kaj ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH <a.grabmueller@quarit.de> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 18:58 To: 'RIPE member discuss list' <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Hello Brian, I don't really understand your argument. So yes, if you have been a member for a long time you have received a bigger allocation. But either you use that allocation, then there's no argument. Or you don't use it - then give back what you don't need. Best regards, Andreas Grabmüller QuarIT GmbH \\ Jägerstraße 19 \\ 83308 Trostberg \\ Deutschland a.grabmueller@quarit.de \\ https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quaritec.de%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce858b005e95d4ca1a62808db4d5ebf64%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638188841575802874%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z4A5SQVW%2FkGbHj2Ug06tkoBzV71w2lTxADfsycDh0Ug%3D&reserved=0<http://www.quaritec.de/> \\ Telefon: +49 8621 994900-0 \\ Telefax: +49 8621 994900-9 Amtsgericht Traunstein: HRB 23872 \\ Sitz: Trostberg \\ Geschäftsführer: Andreas Grabmüller \\ Ust.-ID: DE297594275 Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quaritec.de%2Fagb&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce858b005e95d4ca1a62808db4d5ebf64%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638188841575802874%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S7YTXPJ2D9NPx8L6YRbp%2FhfPtMmqKMnE2JgTvWtiX24%3D&reserved=0<http://www.quaritec.de/agb> \\ Aktuelle Preisliste: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quaritec.de%2Fpreise&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce858b005e95d4ca1a62808db4d5ebf64%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638188841575802874%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jUScpXOZM3T6oFOdWeCCNNfl2Nny0AKLx5k%2Bh9x6CoA%3D&reserved=0<http://www.quaritec.de/preise> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Brian Turnbow via members-discuss Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2023 18:57 An: RIPE member discuss list <members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024 Hi,
Thanks for this link.
Also I've noticed that in ARIN, /20 up to and including /18 plus /32 up to and including /28 are referred as SMALL, with a fee of $2000, not $4000+ as proposed in model A.
What makes the pay per category model "A" as proposed impossible for me to vote for is it penalizes all long standing lirs. When I started working with Ripe you signed up completed the forms and a /19 was allocated, more if you could demonstrate need but /19 was default. You then requested an AS. Run out came along and you could get a last /22 together with your v6 allocation. So that adds up to a /19, /22, AS and /32(or /29) That should be the bare minimum for small as it is what any long standing lir has with Ripe, yet they would now find themselves in category 6 at the high end of the scale. It does not mean they have more revenues than a lir started in say 2018 with much less IP resources, just that they started first. Note that I am not talking about the company I work for, we have more resources than those stated above, but I know several companies that fit into the category. Brian _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce858b005e95d4ca1a62808db4d5ebf64%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638188841575802874%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=t8jr9Rb2aWf6VQ1D6P2X1PwwojY6Xq1EoREhxblX9Y0%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fa.grabmueller%2540quari&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce858b005e95d4ca1a62808db4d5ebf64%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638188841575802874%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E5UmQ85rd95QIjYL1oB%2FYsEY2rsxQfrawlInjswhNUI%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/a.grabmueller%40quari> t.de
On Thursday 04 May 2023 17:58:39 Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH wrote:
Hello Brian,
I don't really understand your argument. So yes, if you have been a member for a long time you have received a bigger allocation. But either you use that allocation, then there's no argument. Or you don't use it - then give back what you don't need.
Please permit me to dissent to that. In principle, what you say is not without merit; in practice consider that In time, the ip usage of resources allocated to me is used in non-contiguos manner. while all is ok when the resources are annunced as allocated, in the remote case i release some /24 the route disaggregation will be done by announcing all /24 in lieu of the natual /19 so while in principle what you say has some merit, the *cost* of doing that, for all LIRs, is an explosion of BGP tables where now is already at about 1Mroutes. so the cost for the SMALLs that have also small equipment will be the forced sustitution to more preforming ones with the associated non-negligible costs. Secondly it is more likely in the SMALL category that the business model we have is based on other consideration that the reselling of capacity with ip address so not necessarily the possession of the default assignment is directly generating revenue. You cannot assume the business model you are used to is the same for all. Best Regards, Andrea Borghi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Borghi - W KEY srl - http://www.wkey.it Tel. +39 0648919230 e +39 0648919231 Fax. +39 064871550 - Mobile: +39 3477135822 sede legale: Via Alfredo Catalani 30 - 00199 Roma - P.IVA e CF 08426171008
Hi Gert,
So option 1, the NCC regularily comes asking ("does anyone in your company know if AS196631 is still in use?"). Option 2, you find a financial incentive to make people return ASNs that are no longer needed, because they find the yearly monetary transfer annoying.
I am convinced that a charge around 50 EUR is a reasonable thing to add - it's low enough that it is not really noticeable for someone who really need a public ASN, as in "takes part of global BGP, has infrastructure, etc", while at the same time annoying enough so you want to get rid of it if you do no longer need the ASN.
Seriously, you're again in discussion similar to 2007-01. How to introduce the fee for numbers? Explain that maintaining a registry of numbers couldn't be for free. Every SS7 code, every license plate, every airport code have a cost. But RIPE NCC already have the registry and RIPE Database is mostly about IP addresses as the most valuable resource. Otherwise we could come to a conclusion that every DB object should cause a fee. At the moment the most fair solution as for me is: charge for the most valuable. Don't charge for person/role/route/aut-num/mntner/poem. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov
Hello, the discussion is quite different in general I think compared to past years. In the past there were considerable surpluses and ways were sought to spend them meaningfully. Now the situation is a little different. We are talking about how to *not* reduce unnecessary expenses in an environment where costs have increased significantly. Someone probably wants to continue financing things completely unrelated to the operation of the database and related services. We here do'nt operate like a company, where the first question is which costs can be reduced. We are looking for ways to make more money. More money from the pockets of members. Someone just took inflation and simply multiplied the existing budget somewhat. He didn't care too much about how necessary the costs really were. This is a management failure I think. I don't want to give up their toys unrelated to the primary business. We have to look at the spending side of the budget. Another thing concerns very large LIRs. Model bound for consumption protect the really biggest ones from a big increase in cost at the expense of the middle ones. Why? We often see that it is the middle class who are beaten mostly. Yes, it is a discussion about the parameters of a model built on categories and consumption. And there is really no reason to defend the incumbents. An increase in costs can be accepted, but it must be justified. It must be proven that on the expenditure side expenses have really been reduced to the necessary minimum and there are no other ways. And unfortunately this didn't happen. And I think we can live without the website redesign things. This is an example of unnecessary expenses, although of course the marketing department will be against it, so I want to show activity and prove their importance. Their toy. Which costs us our money. Of course, this is meant as an example, a real audit would certainly show a lot of expenses that can be reduced. But yes, in principle, a monopoly organization does not have to play in commerce. So I will enter all of them individually, starting with the board members, you should start looking at the spending page and think about what's really unnecessary. Explain in detail why certain projects need to be supported. Sometimes our organization resembles the state and governments. I want more and more money with the fact that they know best what is best for us. But they very often loses touch with reality. And I behave even in times of crisis like in times of boom. - Daniel On 4/19/23 20:37, Sergey Myasoedov via members-discuss wrote:
Hi Gert,
So option 1, the NCC regularily comes asking ("does anyone in your company know if AS196631 is still in use?"). Option 2, you find a financial incentive to make people return ASNs that are no longer needed, because they find the yearly monetary transfer annoying.
I am convinced that a charge around 50 EUR is a reasonable thing to add - it's low enough that it is not really noticeable for someone who really need a public ASN, as in "takes part of global BGP, has infrastructure, etc", while at the same time annoying enough so you want to get rid of it if you do no longer need the ASN.
Seriously, you're again in discussion similar to 2007-01. How to introduce the fee for numbers? Explain that maintaining a registry of numbers couldn't be for free. Every SS7 code, every license plate, every airport code have a cost. But RIPE NCC already have the registry and RIPE Database is mostly about IP addresses as the most valuable resource. Otherwise we could come to a conclusion that every DB object should cause a fee.
At the moment the most fair solution as for me is: charge for the most valuable. Don't charge for person/role/route/aut-num/mntner/poem.
-- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/danny%40danysek.cz
participants (21)
-
alex -
Andrea Borghi -
Andreas Grabmüller | QuarIT GmbH -
André Grüneberg -
Brian Turnbow -
Clement Cavadore -
Daniel Suchy -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Gert Doering -
J Pawlus -
john erivona -
Kai Siering -
Kaj Niemi -
Maximilian Wilhelm -
Michel Lanners -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
ripe-ncc-members-discuss＠itns.md -
Sander Steffann -
Sebastien Brossier -
Sergey Myasoedov -
Vitalii Zubok