[ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Dear all, First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far. I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome. Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions. 1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/dis... I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/mem... 2. To clarify what determines the category someone is placed within in the model I shared, it is the highest score for just one of the following types of resource: - IPv4 allocations - IPv6 allocations - ASN assignments - Independent resources (includes all resource assignments not in the previous three categories, including all sponsored items) Note: Independent resources are charged by number of assignments rather than by the amount of IPs within the assignment. So if your highest score is for IPv4 allocations, then the amount for IPv6 allocations, ASNs or independent resources does not contribute to the category you are placed in. The highest score of the four defines the category. The elements that we charge for in the categories or separately can of course change or be refined based on your feedback. 3. Another person asked for comparison with other RIR charging schemes, and I provide links to the information on their websites: APNIC: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/ ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ AFRINIC: https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource LACNIC: https://www.lacnic.net/2399/2/lacnic/membership-fees-and-categories 4. There was a question on how we charge for those who are still on the waiting list and have not yet received any IPv4 address space. We are still looking at how this might work and it is something I can bring up during the Open House. Potentially, there could be a base membership fee and another fee once IPv4 resources are received. 5. There was a request for comment on the idea that the RIPE NCC had permitted multiple LIRs in order to allow some members to receive more address space. In fact, the members themselves voted at the General Meeting to allow this in 2016. There had been a resolution by the Executive Board to stop the creation of multiple LIR accounts in 2015; there was a lengthy discussion about this and the Board therefore asked the members to discuss the issue and make a decision on the matter in 2016. Board Resolution: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/board-resolution-to-sus... Membership Vote: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016 Finally, there was a comment that we need to achieve a balance between fairness and complexity. This comment really resonates with me, given that there are possibly as many ways to charge as there are IPv6 addresses. At the Open House next week, I plan to present updated models that take as much of your feedback as possible into account, and of course I'll share that information afterwards with the full membership. Charging Scheme 2024 Open House: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-cha... Kind regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
Hi, Simon-Jan I am try to analyze you data and found something strange We have two documents: Doc 1 : https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/dis... and Doc 2 : https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/mem... If we count LIRs in Doc 1 it will be 23431. If we look in Doc 2 LIRs number is 20254. If we count LIRs in Doc1 per categories Doc2 and take data IPv4 from Doc 2 we can see: Category: Doc1 : Doc2 --------------------------- 1 : 1774 : 1542 512 : 4873 : 2272 2048 : 11483 : 9917 8192 : 3350 : 3560 32768 : 1201 : 1872
32768 : 750 : 1091
23431 : 20254 If these differences calculate in money - it will be 2,3 mln Euro. It is 10% budget, and is about the sum budget rise in this year. Are you sure we are really ready to discuss our budget and schemes right now?
Dear all,
First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far.
I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome.
Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions.
1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/dis...
I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/mem...
2. To clarify what determines the category someone is placed within in the model I shared, it is the highest score for just one of the following types of resource: - IPv4 allocations - IPv6 allocations - ASN assignments - Independent resources (includes all resource assignments not in the previous three categories, including all sponsored items) Note: Independent resources are charged by number of assignments rather than by the amount of IPs within the assignment.
So if your highest score is for IPv4 allocations, then the amount for IPv6 allocations, ASNs or independent resources does not contribute to the category you are placed in. The highest score of the four defines the category. The elements that we charge for in the categories or separately can of course change or be refined based on your feedback.
3. Another person asked for comparison with other RIR charging schemes, and I provide links to the information on their websites: APNIC: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/ ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ AFRINIC: https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource LACNIC: https://www.lacnic.net/2399/2/lacnic/membership-fees-and-categories
4. There was a question on how we charge for those who are still on the waiting list and have not yet received any IPv4 address space. We are still looking at how this might work and it is something I can bring up during the Open House. Potentially, there could be a base membership fee and another fee once IPv4 resources are received.
5. There was a request for comment on the idea that the RIPE NCC had permitted multiple LIRs in order to allow some members to receive more address space. In fact, the members themselves voted at the General Meeting to allow this in 2016. There had been a resolution by the Executive Board to stop the creation of multiple LIR accounts in 2015; there was a lengthy discussion about this and the Board therefore asked the members to discuss the issue and make a decision on the matter in 2016.
Board Resolution: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/board-resolution-to-sus...
Membership Vote: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016
Finally, there was a comment that we need to achieve a balance between fairness and complexity. This comment really resonates with me, given that there are possibly as many ways to charge as there are IPv6 addresses. At the Open House next week, I plan to present updated models that take as much of your feedback as possible into account, and of course I'll share that information afterwards with the full membership.
Charging Scheme 2024 Open House: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-cha...
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
And litle more... Using data from https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/dis... I calcalute percent of budget load to percetn of IPv4 recurced use. I devide category 5 on two subcategories +131072 and >131072 for best view on situation (look table below). It looks fun LIRs who using 77% resources will pay 7,4% on budget :-). For free market price 10$ rent per year for 1 IP they will have 3,5 bln Euro paying NCC only near 1,9 mln Euro. I like this business! 185000 % of profit! I Think they ready kill anyone of us for these money (it's joke). Category : LIRs per Cat : Price : IPv4 per Cat : amount per Cat : %IPv4 per Cat : %am per Cat 1 : 1774 : 200 : 0 : 354800 : 0,0 : 1,4 512 : 4873 : 400 : 1329664 : 1949200 : 0,3 : 7,6 2048 : 11483 : 800 : 14598144 : 9186400 : 3,3 : 36,0 8192 : 3350 : 1600 : 19914752 : 5360000 : 4,5 : 21,0 32768 : 1201 : 3200 : 26689536 : 3843200 : 6,0 : 15,1 + 131072 : 457 : 6400 : 40042496 : 2924800 : 9,0 : 11,5
131072 : 293 : 6400 : 343670784 : 1875200 : 77,0 : 7,4
23138 : 446245376 : 25493600 :
Dear all,
First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far.
I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome.
Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions.
1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/dis...
I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/mem...
2. To clarify what determines the category someone is placed within in the model I shared, it is the highest score for just one of the following types of resource: - IPv4 allocations - IPv6 allocations - ASN assignments - Independent resources (includes all resource assignments not in the previous three categories, including all sponsored items) Note: Independent resources are charged by number of assignments rather than by the amount of IPs within the assignment.
So if your highest score is for IPv4 allocations, then the amount for IPv6 allocations, ASNs or independent resources does not contribute to the category you are placed in. The highest score of the four defines the category. The elements that we charge for in the categories or separately can of course change or be refined based on your feedback.
3. Another person asked for comparison with other RIR charging schemes, and I provide links to the information on their websites: APNIC: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/ ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ AFRINIC: https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource LACNIC: https://www.lacnic.net/2399/2/lacnic/membership-fees-and-categories
4. There was a question on how we charge for those who are still on the waiting list and have not yet received any IPv4 address space. We are still looking at how this might work and it is something I can bring up during the Open House. Potentially, there could be a base membership fee and another fee once IPv4 resources are received.
5. There was a request for comment on the idea that the RIPE NCC had permitted multiple LIRs in order to allow some members to receive more address space. In fact, the members themselves voted at the General Meeting to allow this in 2016. There had been a resolution by the Executive Board to stop the creation of multiple LIR accounts in 2015; there was a lengthy discussion about this and the Board therefore asked the members to discuss the issue and make a decision on the matter in 2016.
Board Resolution: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/board-resolution-to-sus...
Membership Vote: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016
Finally, there was a comment that we need to achieve a balance between fairness and complexity. This comment really resonates with me, given that there are possibly as many ways to charge as there are IPv6 addresses. At the Open House next week, I plan to present updated models that take as much of your feedback as possible into account, and of course I'll share that information afterwards with the full membership.
Charging Scheme 2024 Open House: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-cha...
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
And one more "litle more"... In my opinion, either a scheme with an increased number of categories (up to 9) or with a network fee + a fixed payment will be fairer. The calculated data is below. I have attached a file to excel for independent calculations who wants, but I do not know how to add it to the general discussion Scheme with 9 Categories IP LIRsN IP per LIRs IP per Cat Lirs per Cat Price per Cat am per Cat %IPv4 per Cat %am per Cat 0 1774 0 0 1774 200 354800 0 1,49 256 4552 1165312 512 321 164352 1329664 4873 400 1949200 0,3 8,16 1024 8710 8919040 2048 2773 5679104 4096 1838 7528448 22126592 13321 800 10656800 4,96 44,63 8192 1512 12386304 16384 773 12664832 25051136 2285 1600 3656000 5,61 15,31 32768 428 14024704 65536 303 19857408 33882112 731 3200 2339200 7,59 9,8 131072 154 20185088 262144 113 29622272 49807360 267 6400 1708800 11,16 7,16 524288 67 35127296 1048576 58 60817408 95944704 125 12800 1600000 21,5 6,7 2097152 30 62914560 4194304 17 71303168 134217728 47 25600 1203200 30,08 5,04 8388608 6 50331648 16777216 2 33554432 83886080 8 51200 409600 18,8 1,72 23431 446245376 446245376 23431 =23877600 100,0 100,0 Scheme with fix part and pay for every NET Fix am. 300 Net price 6 IP LIRsN IP per LIRs IP per Cat Net num am per Nets Price am per Cat %IPv4 per Cat %am per Cat 0 1774 0 0 0 0 300 1064400 0,0 4,3 256 4552 1165312 1165312 1 6 306 2758512 0,3 11,3 512 321 164352 164352 2 12 312 196452 0,0 0,8 1024 8710 8919040 8919040 4 24 324 5435040 2,0 22,2 2048 2773 5679104 5679104 8 48 348 1796904 1,3 7,3 4096 1838 7528448 7528448 16 96 396 1279248 1,7 5,2 8192 1512 12386304 12386304 32 192 492 1197504 2,8 4,9 16384 773 12664832 12664832 64 384 684 760632 2,8 3,1 32768 428 14024704 14024704 128 768 1068 585504 3,1 2,4 65536 303 19857408 19857408 256 1536 1836 647208 4,5 2,6 131072 154 20185088 20185088 512 3072 3372 565488 4,5 2,3 262144 113 29622272 29622272 1024 6144 6444 762072 6,6 3,1 524288 67 35127296 35127296 2048 12288 12588 863496 7,9 3,5 1048576 58 60817408 60817408 4096 24576 24876 1460208 13,6 6,0 2097152 30 62914560 62914560 8192 49152 49452 1492560 14,1 6,1 4194304 17 71303168 71303168 16384 98304 98604 1681368 16,0 6,9 8388608 6 50331648 50331648 32768 196608 196908 1183248 11,3 4,8 16777216 2 33554432 33554432 65536 393216 393516 787632 7,5 3,2 23431 446245376 446245376 791826 =24517476 100,0 100,0
Dear all,
First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far.
I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome.
Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions.
1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/dis...
I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/mem...
2. To clarify what determines the category someone is placed within in the model I shared, it is the highest score for just one of the following types of resource: - IPv4 allocations - IPv6 allocations - ASN assignments - Independent resources (includes all resource assignments not in the previous three categories, including all sponsored items) Note: Independent resources are charged by number of assignments rather than by the amount of IPs within the assignment.
So if your highest score is for IPv4 allocations, then the amount for IPv6 allocations, ASNs or independent resources does not contribute to the category you are placed in. The highest score of the four defines the category. The elements that we charge for in the categories or separately can of course change or be refined based on your feedback.
3. Another person asked for comparison with other RIR charging schemes, and I provide links to the information on their websites: APNIC: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/ ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ AFRINIC: https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource LACNIC: https://www.lacnic.net/2399/2/lacnic/membership-fees-and-categories
4. There was a question on how we charge for those who are still on the waiting list and have not yet received any IPv4 address space. We are still looking at how this might work and it is something I can bring up during the Open House. Potentially, there could be a base membership fee and another fee once IPv4 resources are received.
5. There was a request for comment on the idea that the RIPE NCC had permitted multiple LIRs in order to allow some members to receive more address space. In fact, the members themselves voted at the General Meeting to allow this in 2016. There had been a resolution by the Executive Board to stop the creation of multiple LIR accounts in 2015; there was a lengthy discussion about this and the Board therefore asked the members to discuss the issue and make a decision on the matter in 2016.
Board Resolution: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/board-resolution-to-sus...
Membership Vote: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016
Finally, there was a comment that we need to achieve a balance between fairness and complexity. This comment really resonates with me, given that there are possibly as many ways to charge as there are IPv6 addresses. At the Open House next week, I plan to present updated models that take as much of your feedback as possible into account, and of course I'll share that information afterwards with the full membership.
Charging Scheme 2024 Open House: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-cha...
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
Sorry, the last xls file didn't work completely. Good in attachment.
Dear all,
First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far.
I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome.
Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions.
1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/dis...
I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/mem...
2. To clarify what determines the category someone is placed within in the model I shared, it is the highest score for just one of the following types of resource: - IPv4 allocations - IPv6 allocations - ASN assignments - Independent resources (includes all resource assignments not in the previous three categories, including all sponsored items) Note: Independent resources are charged by number of assignments rather than by the amount of IPs within the assignment.
So if your highest score is for IPv4 allocations, then the amount for IPv6 allocations, ASNs or independent resources does not contribute to the category you are placed in. The highest score of the four defines the category. The elements that we charge for in the categories or separately can of course change or be refined based on your feedback.
3. Another person asked for comparison with other RIR charging schemes, and I provide links to the information on their websites: APNIC: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/ ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ AFRINIC: https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource LACNIC: https://www.lacnic.net/2399/2/lacnic/membership-fees-and-categories
4. There was a question on how we charge for those who are still on the waiting list and have not yet received any IPv4 address space. We are still looking at how this might work and it is something I can bring up during the Open House. Potentially, there could be a base membership fee and another fee once IPv4 resources are received.
5. There was a request for comment on the idea that the RIPE NCC had permitted multiple LIRs in order to allow some members to receive more address space. In fact, the members themselves voted at the General Meeting to allow this in 2016. There had been a resolution by the Executive Board to stop the creation of multiple LIR accounts in 2015; there was a lengthy discussion about this and the Board therefore asked the members to discuss the issue and make a decision on the matter in 2016.
Board Resolution: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/board-resolution-to-sus...
Membership Vote: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016
Finally, there was a comment that we need to achieve a balance between fairness and complexity. This comment really resonates with me, given that there are possibly as many ways to charge as there are IPv6 addresses. At the Open House next week, I plan to present updated models that take as much of your feedback as possible into account, and of course I'll share that information afterwards with the full membership.
Charging Scheme 2024 Open House: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-cha...
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
My thoughts after the open house: - I am still in favour of a category-based model. A cheap base membership fee will encourage diversity and help gain new members in the coming years. Whereas the current model will lead to fewer and fewer members sharing the bill. - The M&A fee should be low. A high fee would discourage members from updating their details, which would go against the core mission of the RIPE NCC. - A high fee might be understandable for IPv4 transfers in the current context, but unfair for ASN and IPv6 transfers ("pay up or renumber"). - I like the 10 category model (alternative 4), because the price per IPv4 address remains low for everyone. - Independent resources should have either a separate fee, or a category system. Not both, it makes no sense. It might be more reasonable to just keep the separate fee (for all independent resources, including ASN), for stability. - If we really want to change how independent resources are charged, I think it would be nice to have all sponsored users join as members, and count all IP resources in IPv4/IPv6 categories. But that would imply a huge workload for the RIPE NCC. - In favour of a X kEUR fee to get a new /24 IPv4 from the waiting list. We can't ignore the market. Kind regards, Sébastien Brossier
Current waiting list que is 18-24 months. Paying X k (Hans mentioned something about 20% off the market price) after 2 years in waiting list doesn't even make sense because it will be cheaper and more productive to buy resources in an open market and start using resources straight away compared to this scheme offered by RIPE. Also, Hans Peter during open house mentioned that RIPE is not selling or leasing resources, but this would mean that RIPE will be the first RIR to actually start selling resources. On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 15:37, Sebastien Brossier<sebastien@brossier.org> wrote: My thoughts after the open house: - I am still in favour of a category-based model. A cheap base membership fee will encourage diversity and help gain new members in the coming years. Whereas the current model will lead to fewer and fewer members sharing the bill. - The M&A fee should be low. A high fee would discourage members from updating their details, which would go against the core mission of the RIPE NCC. - A high fee might be understandable for IPv4 transfers in the current context, but unfair for ASN and IPv6 transfers ("pay up or renumber"). - I like the 10 category model (alternative 4), because the price per IPv4 address remains low for everyone. - Independent resources should have either a separate fee, or a category system. Not both, it makes no sense. It might be more reasonable to just keep the separate fee (for all independent resources, including ASN), for stability. - If we really want to change how independent resources are charged, I think it would be nice to have all sponsored users join as members, and count all IP resources in IPv4/IPv6 categories. But that would imply a huge workload for the RIPE NCC. - In favour of a X kEUR fee to get a new /24 IPv4 from the waiting list. We can't ignore the market. Kind regards, Sébastien Brossier _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/eisina%40yahoo.com
Hello, I think it is very necessary to address the problem of LIRs that need IPs in relation to LIRs that have +80% of their IPs unused. How to fix? maybe a pay per individual IP model? For example: 0.25 €/year per IP. I think this will make those who have unused IPs give them back and reduce speculation, which I think are the two big problems. Thanks! -- José Manuel Giner https://ginernet.com On 17/03/2023 10:24, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear all,
First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far.
I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome.
Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions.
1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/dis...
I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/mem...
2. To clarify what determines the category someone is placed within in the model I shared, it is the highest score for just one of the following types of resource: - IPv4 allocations - IPv6 allocations - ASN assignments - Independent resources (includes all resource assignments not in the previous three categories, including all sponsored items) Note: Independent resources are charged by number of assignments rather than by the amount of IPs within the assignment.
So if your highest score is for IPv4 allocations, then the amount for IPv6 allocations, ASNs or independent resources does not contribute to the category you are placed in. The highest score of the four defines the category. The elements that we charge for in the categories or separately can of course change or be refined based on your feedback.
3. Another person asked for comparison with other RIR charging schemes, and I provide links to the information on their websites: APNIC: https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/ ARIN: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ AFRINIC: https://afrinic.net/membership/cost#resource LACNIC: https://www.lacnic.net/2399/2/lacnic/membership-fees-and-categories
4. There was a question on how we charge for those who are still on the waiting list and have not yet received any IPv4 address space. We are still looking at how this might work and it is something I can bring up during the Open House. Potentially, there could be a base membership fee and another fee once IPv4 resources are received.
5. There was a request for comment on the idea that the RIPE NCC had permitted multiple LIRs in order to allow some members to receive more address space. In fact, the members themselves voted at the General Meeting to allow this in 2016. There had been a resolution by the Executive Board to stop the creation of multiple LIR accounts in 2015; there was a lengthy discussion about this and the Board therefore asked the members to discuss the issue and make a decision on the matter in 2016.
Board Resolution: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/board-resolution-to-sus...
Membership Vote: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016
Finally, there was a comment that we need to achieve a balance between fairness and complexity. This comment really resonates with me, given that there are possibly as many ways to charge as there are IPv6 addresses. At the Open House next week, I plan to present updated models that take as much of your feedback as possible into account, and of course I'll share that information afterwards with the full membership.
Charging Scheme 2024 Open House: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-cha...
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ 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/jm%40ginernet.com
It won’t. I believe most will either a) rent out, or b) sell their unused IP addresses if it becomes a choice between having to pay for the privilege of keeping vs converting them to either continuous (renting out) or onetime (sale) revenue. LIRs who have an acute IPv4 address deficit will, realistically, need to procure more addresses on the free market. That is, if they intend to grow their business and not let it stagnate. Kaj Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of José Manuel Giner via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 10:14:30 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Hello, I think it is very necessary to address the problem of LIRs that need IPs in relation to LIRs that have +80% of their IPs unused. How to fix? maybe a pay per individual IP model? For example: 0.25 €/year per IP. I think this will make those who have unused IPs give them back and reduce speculation, which I think are the two big problems. Thanks! -- José Manuel Giner https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fginernet.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994467552%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XwY9HPEkXKXBM%2BpxqAxU5OSX6NNV%2FvP46yUJSfQIC0M%3D&reserved=0 On 17/03/2023 10:24, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear all,
First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far.
I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome.
Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions.
1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fdistribution-of-total-allocated-ipv4-per-lir.png&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5gCFELEOWGX6ULpsEGUdpHHcczGAij3nMotVAWCFKXg%3D&reserved=0
I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fmember-spread-across-categories.png&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=McgLLf5YS41Pc47Zbhz95myWZLA8TKDx0Jku5FjY2Ao%3D&reserved=0
2. To clarify what determines the category someone is placed within in the model I shared, it is the highest score for just one of the following types of resource: - IPv4 allocations - IPv6 allocations - ASN assignments - Independent resources (includes all resource assignments not in the previous three categories, including all sponsored items) Note: Independent resources are charged by number of assignments rather than by the amount of IPs within the assignment.
So if your highest score is for IPv4 allocations, then the amount for IPv6 allocations, ASNs or independent resources does not contribute to the category you are placed in. The highest score of the four defines the category. The elements that we charge for in the categories or separately can of course change or be refined based on your feedback.
3. Another person asked for comparison with other RIR charging schemes, and I provide links to the information on their websites: APNIC: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fget-ip%2Fapnic-membership%2Fhow-much-does-it-cost%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PJ%2BCPI4x8eDbknzv%2BjShaOX9n1%2Bs0sCt6ZhmtVffjMU%3D&reserved=0 ARIN: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arin.net%2Fresources%2Ffees%2Ffee_schedule%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TAFgtin8UkyHacIE9%2F%2B060Yc%2BYrCoBdbeJlplnza7oU%3D&reserved=0 AFRINIC: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fafrinic.net%2Fmembership%2Fcost%23resource&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cb4Aaz%2FYHRUTS49YAvLPQzjeXNE5PmUZ1B1MVD%2BFMYM%3D&reserved=0 LACNIC: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lacnic.net%2F2399%2F2%2Flacnic%2Fmembership-fees-and-categories&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CIQB4NftyPEkV4x7BuT7dPlDIJNxyLMtFtuqGAiI0j4%3D&reserved=0
4. There was a question on how we charge for those who are still on the waiting list and have not yet received any IPv4 address space. We are still looking at how this might work and it is something I can bring up during the Open House. Potentially, there could be a base membership fee and another fee once IPv4 resources are received.
5. There was a request for comment on the idea that the RIPE NCC had permitted multiple LIRs in order to allow some members to receive more address space. In fact, the members themselves voted at the General Meeting to allow this in 2016. There had been a resolution by the Executive Board to stop the creation of multiple LIR accounts in 2015; there was a lengthy discussion about this and the Board therefore asked the members to discuss the issue and make a decision on the matter in 2016.
Finally, there was a comment that we need to achieve a balance between fairness and complexity. This comment really resonates with me, given that there are possibly as many ways to charge as there are IPv6 addresses. At the Open House next week, I plan to present updated models that take as much of your feedback as possible into account, and of course I'll share that information afterwards with the full membership.
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink Finance Director RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ 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%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ezweqpi8sbAxU7BuqAipMOoor5dg2ZJkwHZrc%2FmLvzg%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fjm%2540ginernet.com&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YsMJRvSdn1aPgoLdHDPN%2F%2Bit5ZbjITIKrLVy53p6f4Q%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ezweqpi8sbAxU7BuqAipMOoor5dg2ZJkwHZrc%2FmLvzg%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=07XDQnkxGdtpxO5XGM5uzNnLWDJcuh6Kip4IpFioKwU%3D&reserved=0
Hello, I agree. We are actually renting a server for offsite backups in Canada and the provider charges 1 Euro per month for 1 additional IP address. No way anyone would return unused IPv4 addresses. But after seeing the new updated calculator we would definitely return part of our IPv6 allocation if the charging scheme category A should be chosen. The "free" enlargement from /32 to /29 suddenly costs 350 Euro per year. -- Kind regards David e-mail: d.bruha@virtis.cz Dne čtvrtek 30. března 2023 15:22:15 CEST, Kaj Niemi napsal(a):
It won’t. I believe most will either a) rent out, or b) sell their unused IP addresses if it becomes a choice between having to pay for the privilege of keeping vs converting them to either continuous (renting out) or onetime (sale) revenue.
LIRs who have an acute IPv4 address deficit will, realistically, need to procure more addresses on the free market. That is, if they intend to grow their business and not let it stagnate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of José Manuel Giner via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 10:14:30 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Hello,
I think it is very necessary to address the problem of LIRs that need IPs in relation to LIRs that have +80% of their IPs unused.
How to fix? maybe a pay per individual IP model?
For example: 0.25 €/year per IP.
I think this will make those who have unused IPs give them back and reduce speculation, which I think are the two big problems.
Thanks!
-- José Manuel Giner https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fginernet.c
om%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4a cc9
23b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994467552%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8 eyJWIjo
iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7 C&
sdata=XwY9HPEkXKXBM%2BpxqAxU5OSX6NNV%2FvP46yUJSfQIC0M%3D&reserved=0 On 17/03/2023 10:24, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear all,
First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover a number of points brought up in the consultation so far.
I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome.
Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also answer some specific questions.
1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here is a chart with that information: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe .net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fdistribut ion-of-total-allocated-ipv4-per-lir.png&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0
100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C63815776099 4
623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5gCFELEOWGX6ULpsEGUdpHH cczGA
ij3nMotVAWCFKXg%3D&reserved=0
I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each category in the model we shared: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe .net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fmember-sp read-across-categories.png&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3
cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CU nkn
own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=McgLLf5YS41Pc47Zbhz95myWZLA8TKDx0Jku5 FjY2
Yup, I was also surprised that the seemingly default allocation for v6 was considered a higher category! Is it really worth it for the NCC to chase people for the difference between a /32 and a /29? I was under the impression that the /29 was reserved anyway each time a LIR got a v6 block. On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 3:13 PM David Brůha <d.bruha@virtis.cz> wrote:
Hello,
I agree. We are actually renting a server for offsite backups in Canada and the provider charges 1 Euro per month for 1 additional IP address. No way anyone would return unused IPv4 addresses.
But after seeing the new updated calculator we would definitely return part of our IPv6 allocation if the charging scheme category A should be chosen. The "free" enlargement from /32 to /29 suddenly costs 350 Euro per year.
--
Kind regards
David
e-mail: d.bruha@virtis.cz
Dne čtvrtek 30. března 2023 15:22:15 CEST, Kaj Niemi napsal(a):
It won’t. I believe most will either a) rent out, or b) sell their unused IP
addresses if it becomes a choice between having to pay for the privilege of
keeping vs converting them to either continuous (renting out) or onetime
(sale) revenue.
LIRs who have an acute IPv4 address deficit will, realistically, need to
procure more addresses on the free market. That is, if they intend to grow
their business and not let it stagnate.
Kaj
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of José
Manuel Giner via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent:
Wednesday, March 29, 2023 10:14:30 PM
To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC
Charging Scheme
Hello,
I think it is very necessary to address the problem of LIRs that need
IPs in relation to LIRs that have +80% of their IPs unused.
How to fix? maybe a pay per individual IP model?
For example: 0.25 €/year per IP.
I think this will make those who have unused IPs give them back and
reduce speculation, which I think are the two big problems.
Thanks!
--
José Manuel Giner
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fginernet.c
om%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc9
23b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994467552%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo
iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&
sdata=XwY9HPEkXKXBM%2BpxqAxU5OSX6NNV%2FvP46yUJSfQIC0M%3D&reserved=0
On 17/03/2023 10:24, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
Dear all,
First off, I apologise for the length of this email, but I hope to cover
a number of points brought up in the consultation so far.
I want to thank you again for your input so far on the models. We are
busy looking at all the feedback. We have also seen over 100 members
sign up for the Open House next week to discuss this further, so I
appreciate your interest in helping us to reach a good outcome.
Looking at the feedback we've seen so far, there are a number of
questions and points raised where I can help to add clarity and also
answer some specific questions.
1. Some of you asked for a breakdown of the IPv4 address space held by
LIRs to help with your consideration of a category-based model. So here
is a chart with that information:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe
.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fdistribut
ion-of-total-allocated-ipv4-per-lir.png&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0
100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994
623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5gCFELEOWGX6ULpsEGUdpHHcczGA
ij3nMotVAWCFKXg%3D&reserved=0
I’d like to note that in the models we are developing, we are looking to
move to a model that charges per member rather than per LIR account. So
I also have an indicative spread of how many members would be in each
category in the model we shared:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe
.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmail%2Fmember-and-community-consultations%2Fmember-sp
read-across-categories.png&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3
cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnkn
own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=McgLLf5YS41Pc47Zbhz95myWZLA8TKDx0Jku5FjY2
Ao%3D&reserved=0
2. To clarify what determines the category someone is placed within in
the model I shared, it is the highest score for just one of the
following types of resource:
- IPv4 allocations
- IPv6 allocations
- ASN assignments
- Independent resources (includes all resource assignments not in the
previous three categories, including all sponsored items)
Note: Independent resources are charged by number of assignments rather
than by the amount of IPs within the assignment.
So if your highest score is for IPv4 allocations, then the amount for
IPv6 allocations, ASNs or independent resources does not contribute to
the category you are placed in. The highest score of the four defines
the category. The elements that we charge for in the categories or
separately can of course change or be refined based on your feedback.
3. Another person asked for comparison with other RIR charging schemes,
and I provide links to the information on their websites:
APNIC:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apn
ic.net%2Fget-ip%2Fapnic-membership%2Fhow-much-does-it-cost%2F&data=05%7C01
%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%
7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL
CJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PJ%2BC
PI4x8eDbknzv%2BjShaOX9n1%2Bs0sCt6ZhmtVffjMU%3D&reserved=0 ARIN:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ari
n.net%2Fresources%2Ffees%2Ffee_schedule%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d01754
2a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760
994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB
TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TAFgtin8UkyHacIE9%2F%2B06
0Yc%2BYrCoBdbeJlplnza7oU%3D&reserved=0 AFRINIC:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fafrinic
.net%2Fmembership%2Fcost%23resource&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f
08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6381577609946238
71%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cb4Aaz%2FYHRUTS49YAvLPQzjeXNE5Pm
UZ1B1MVD%2BFMYM%3D&reserved=0 LACNIC:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lac
nic.net%2F2399%2F2%2Flacnic%2Fmembership-fees-and-categories&data=05%7C01%
7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7
C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC
JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CIQB4Nf
tyPEkV4x7BuT7dPlDIJNxyLMtFtuqGAiI0j4%3D&reserved=0
4. There was a question on how we charge for those who are still on the
waiting list and have not yet received any IPv4 address space. We are
still looking at how this might work and it is something I can bring up
during the Open House. Potentially, there could be a base membership fee
and another fee once IPv4 resources are received.
5. There was a request for comment on the idea that the RIPE NCC had
permitted multiple LIRs in order to allow some members to receive more
address space. In fact, the members themselves voted at the General
Meeting to allow this in 2016. There had been a resolution by the
Executive Board to stop the creation of multiple LIR accounts in 2015;
there was a lengthy discussion about this and the Board therefore asked
the members to discuss the issue and make a decision on the matter in
2016.
Board Resolution:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe
.net%2Fpublications%2Fnews%2Fannouncements%2Fboard-resolution-to-suspend-c
reation-of-multiple-lir-accounts&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08d
b311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%
7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haW
wiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2jAWk7ZRZjTNSlfqpVwX648Bu1kwsfXvXvC
LRGD1xWE%3D&reserved=0
Membership Vote:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe
.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmeetings%2Fgm%2Fmeetings%2Fmay-2016&data=05%7C01%7C%7
Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7
C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj
oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VefCoEB5Mso
WARWN1HNe7c441x1uUHDXXcNy%2BXR6naU%3D&reserved=0
Finally, there was a comment that we need to achieve a balance between
fairness and complexity. This comment really resonates with me, given
that there are possibly as many ways to charge as there are IPv6
addresses. At the Open House next week, I plan to present updated models
that take as much of your feedback as possible into account, and of
course I'll share that information afterwards with the full membership.
Charging Scheme 2024 Open House:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe
.net%2Fparticipate%2Fmeetings%2Fopen-house%2Fripe-ncc-open-house-charging-
scheme-2024-consultation&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc
1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknow
n%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC
I6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OGs8lfe9V5NrsDKah9IijvLUu9pT57qicuzQ0A7Vx1s
%3D&reserved=0
Kind regards,
Simon Jan Haytink
Finance Director
RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ri
pe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d01
7542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157
760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiL
CJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ezweqpi8sbAxU7BuqAipMO
oor5dg2ZJkwHZrc%2FmLvzg%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ri
pe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fjm%2540ginernet.com&data=05
%7C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b
55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y
sMJRvSdn1aPgoLdHDPN%2F%2Bit5ZbjITIKrLVy53p6f4Q%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
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%7Cfffe6b8d017542
a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994
623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6I
k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ezweqpi8sbAxU7BuqAipMOoor5dg2ZJk
wHZrc%2FmLvzg%3D&reserved=0 Unsubscribe:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip
e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7
C01%7C%7Cfffe6b8d017542a0100f08db311a3cc1%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3
%7C0%7C0%7C638157760994623871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC
JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=07XDQnkxG
dtpxO5XGM5uzNnLWDJcuh6Kip4IpFioKwU%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ 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/ripencc%40benjojo.co....
Hi,
But after seeing the new updated calculator we would definitely return part of our IPv6 allocation if the charging scheme category A should be chosen. The "free" enlargement from /32 to /29 suddenly costs 350 Euro per year.
This also made me think negatively, especially since the allocation of /29 nets should still not lead to any resource shortage. If /29 nets should now suddenly cost additional money, this will only lead to a number of members requesting a renumbering from RIPE. Kind regards Dominik -- Tralios IT GmbH Douglasstr. 24-26 76133 Karlsruhe Telefon: 07 21 - 94 26 96 60 Telefax: 07 21 - 94 26 96 66 E-Mail: info@tralios.de Homepage: https://www.tralios.de Registergericht: Amtsgericht Mannheim Registernummer: HRB 710690 USt-ID: DE274667358 Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Inform. Dominik Vallendor Dipl.-Inform. Carl Thomas Witzenrath
Hi, On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:21:48PM +0200, David Br??ha wrote:
But after seeing the new updated calculator we would definitely return part of our IPv6 allocation if the charging scheme category A should be chosen. The "free" enlargement from /32 to /29 suddenly costs 350 Euro per year.
Uh. I did not see this, but this looks like a very very bad idea. ARIN does this ("a /36 costs less than a /32") and it's a very bad idea, because it encourages conservation where IPv6 should bring in sufficient address space to enjoy the benefits, like, simplicity in end user assignments. So NCC, are you serious about that? This suggestion affects address policy, which is not your job to do, and the *size* of an IPv6 allocation does not affect the costs caused by it. Very bad idea. Gert Doering -- formerly involved in address policy -- 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 13 Apr 2023, at 17:20, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:21:48PM +0200, David Br??ha wrote:
But after seeing the new updated calculator we would definitely return part of our IPv6 allocation if the charging scheme category A should be chosen. The "free" enlargement from /32 to /29 suddenly costs 350 Euro per year.
Uh. I did not see this, but this looks like a very very bad idea.
I missed that as well.
ARIN does this ("a /36 costs less than a /32") and it's a very bad idea, because it encourages conservation where IPv6 should bring in sufficient address space to enjoy the benefits, like, simplicity in end user assignments.
So NCC, are you serious about that? This suggestion affects address policy, which is not your job to do, and the *size* of an IPv6 allocation does not affect the costs caused by it.
Very bad idea.
+1 I have the feeling the boundaries are set by looking at the bookkeeping consequences, not networking practices. If a boundary is needed, I’d suggest to set it at /44 (a handful of /48 assignments) for the smaller categories. If a boundary is necessary for the higher categories, set it at something that requires actual effort. So Everything from /32 to /29 shouldn’t affect the category. And I like nibble boundaries, so boundaries at /28 and/or /24 would be kind of ok. I would prefer clear explanations for the “meaning” of all the categories. Now it feels some nice fee amounts were chosen, and then some arbitrary limits were placed to make the budget fit. I’l like to see the opposite approach. First define the categories (like 1: PI holder with a few small resources like a handful of IPv4/24 and IPv6/48, 2: Small LIR with IPv4/21 and IPv6/29, 3: Larger ISP … etc) and *then* see what the membership fees need to be. What I also strongly object to is to include independent resources in the category system. As a smaller company, with the proposed scheme, I have to really be careful not to push myself into a larger category (and thereby doubling the base yearly fee) by becoming the sponsoring LIR for one extra resource, while larger members have it “included” in their fee already and don’t run that risk. This benefits larger companies and discourages smaller companies from being someone’s Sponsoring LIR. I am Sponsoring LIR some some fellow network engineers, and I don’t make any profit on those resources. If those “charity” sponsorships can suddenly raise my base membership fee I won’t be able to do that anymore. I think that is very wrong. Independent resources are already charged separately. Leave it at that. I don’t mind if the fee for each resource is raised to compensate. That is cost I can charge to the customer. But my membership fee going up isn’t. Cheers, Sander
Hi, On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:14:54AM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
What I also strongly object to is to include independent resources in the category system.
Seconded. There's a reason why these are called "independent" - they carry their own price tag, which is to be paid by the end user (already for IPv4/IPv6 PI, under discussion for AS). Double-charging by also bumping the category is no-go. 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
It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly) AFRINIC. $6m LACNIC. $10m APNIC. $22.5m ARIN. $24m RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m Paul Newton F4RN On Mon, 17 Apr 2023, 19:05 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
What I also strongly object to is to include independent resources in
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:14:54AM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: the category system.
Seconded. There's a reason why these are called "independent" - they carry their own price tag, which is to be paid by the end user (already for IPv4/IPv6 PI, under discussion for AS).
Double-charging by also bumping the category is no-go.
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 _______________________________________________ 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/paul.newton%40f4rn.or...
It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly) AFRINIC. $6m LACNIC. $10m APNIC. $22.5m ARIN. $24m RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...? to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too. this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels. i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl. randy
Thanks Randy, I realise that this criticism is simplistic, but on the other hand we resent being forced to pay for features that were are not in a position to be able to use, by having them embedded in the unavoidable fees. Current charging mechanism represents 3% of our turnover. Paul Newton F4RN On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, 03:52 Randy Bush, <randy@psg.com> wrote:
It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly) AFRINIC. $6m LACNIC. $10m APNIC. $22.5m ARIN. $24m RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...?
to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too.
this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels.
i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl.
randy
paul,
we resent being forced to pay for features that were are not in a position to be able to use, by having them embedded in the unavoidable fees.
understood. but the set of services is the union of the services the members need, not the intersection. but a discussion of the services seems quite appropriate, just not here. i think we get to do that separately.
Current charging mechanism represents 3% of our turnover.
it represents 100% of mine. rgnet has only expense, and it's all NCC fees. rgnet has no paying customers, just research. but that is a conscious choice. and i sympathize with the small isps. which is why i keep asking about finer granularity with a non-capped curve. a 'progressive' rate, kinda like the american income tax was supposed to be. randy
Hello, On 4/25/23 03:52, Randy Bush wrote:
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...?
About DNS services, for example ccTLD secondaries we have *not* to pay at all, their operator should pay to RIPE for that service. ccTLD is businesses with profits for ccTLD operators. We don't have to sponsor it within RIPE, and also there're other organisations which can help. We can provide this service, but it should be paid by ccTLDs somewhat. Also for k-root/authdns, part of costs is paid by other organisations, they pays electricity, hardware and connectivity for hosting such instances. Yes, education is important, but at crisis times you should review spendings even here, verify that costs are effective (expenses for used premises etc). Moreover, nowadays it's possible to operate this remotelly even cheaper. Presentations can be recorded and available 24/7 to anyone. And if you look at the presentations across various events, the same materials and topics are often repeated anyway. Even with other services, you can find room for savings when money is not forthcoming. Projects Fund in general is think we can have, when we have surpluses during conjuncture. But it is a mistake to try to maintain them without reduction when there aren't. Such detains need in-depth audit, not only high-level naming of the some services provided. In organizations with large budgets and generally guaranteed income, there is often no tendency to seek internal savings. The devil is always hidden in the detail.
this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels.
But the discussion about optimization of expenses is important. It is not possible to keep saying that "we have to pay more and more because we know best how to spend your money for the good of the world". The problem is that, according to some considered models, the costs for some member increase rapidly. This will not be a issue with large companies/incumbents, but rather with small and medium ones (and yes, organisation holding 16k IPv4 addresses is *small* I think. And in some countries, especially in the area of Eastern Europe, that financial jump in expenses in category-based can be a huge problem. We have to remember that there are not only members from rich regions. The discussion is not about cutting everything. But it is necessary to consider empathetically from the point of view of organizations that come from poorer regions. And in this, those of the richer ones may fail somewhat. - Daniel
Hi, (please see inline) On Wed, 26 Apr 2023, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss wrote:
Hello,
On 4/25/23 03:52, Randy Bush wrote:
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...?
About DNS services, for example ccTLD secondaries we have *not* to pay at all, their operator should pay to RIPE for that service. ccTLD is businesses with profits for ccTLD operators. We don't have to sponsor it within RIPE, and also there're other organisations which can help. We can provide this service, but it should be paid by ccTLDs somewhat. Also for k-root/authdns, part of costs is paid by other organisations, they pays electricity, hardware and connectivity for hosting such instances.
Strongly agree.
Yes, education is important, but at crisis times you should review spendings even here, verify that costs are effective (expenses for used premises etc). Moreover, nowadays it's possible to operate this remotelly even cheaper. Presentations can be recorded and available 24/7 to anyone. And if you look at the presentations across various events, the same materials and topics are often repeated anyway.
Yes. Completely agree.
Even with other services, you can find room for savings when money is not forthcoming. Projects Fund in general is think we can have, when we have surpluses during conjuncture. But it is a mistake to try to maintain them without reduction when there aren't.
This is what makes sense in most economies, and companies.
Such detains need in-depth audit, not only high-level naming of the some services provided. In organizations with large budgets and generally guaranteed income, there is often no tendency to seek internal savings.
The devil is always hidden in the detail.
How can this change? By electing different people to the Board?
this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels.
But the discussion about optimization of expenses is important. It is not possible to keep saying that "we have to pay more and more because we know best how to spend your money for the good of the world". The problem is that, according to some considered models, the costs for some member increase rapidly.
So i would label them as "bad models" :-))
This will not be a issue with large companies/incumbents, but rather with small and medium ones (and yes, organisation holding 16k IPv4 addresses is *small* I think. And in some countries, especially in the area of Eastern Europe, that financial jump in expenses in category-based can be a huge problem. We have to remember that there are not only members from rich regions. The discussion is not about cutting everything. But it is necessary to consider empathetically from the point of view of organizations that come from poorer regions. And in this, those of the richer ones may fail somewhat.
I think that factor was never considered. The RIPE NCC service region spans through more than 70 economies. Maybe that is one of the issues........ Regards, Carlos
- Daniel
_______________________________________________ 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/cfriacas%40fccn.pt
Hi, It would probably be better to not single out a specific service to get rid of just like that but instead objectively look at the services NCC provides and should provide as part of the service commitment to its membership. To figure out whether they really are something a RIR should do as part of its basic services for LIRs or services that are value-add. Some of these services can be categorized as being in the interest of the public, like the K-root. On the other hand, I don't think anything prohibits charging for other services, if NCC truly wanted. Some of the charging models want to introduce transfer fees, for example, and I do believe people pay for RIPE meetings, too. Thinking creatively about some of the things mentioned: * Training and certs * This is a topic where there could actually be a possibility of upselling * many companies have training budgets * many allow employees to choose how to spend rather freely (subject to line manager approval, etc.) * NCC has 14 FTEs doing developing and doing training, spending around 2 million annually on development of said services * One would assume that there would at least be some kind of payback or plan on how to recoup the costs over time * Looking at 2022 financials, at most certifications were a 98k euro business in 2022 but since NCC sold voucher bundles lets assume generously that 50k of revenue was attributable to 2022 and the other half is classed as future revenue. * Conclusion: depending on viewpoint the costs are either 20x or 40x current revenue * Why should the membership pay for this year in, year out? * Suggestion: produce a realistic plan that demonstrates track to, at least, break even for training and certifications that includes spent past costs for X years * Network visibility * According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful * If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value * if there is value it should be possible to charge for it * Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of spent opex for the last X years As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start. Now, if the answers are “we cannot charge for it, people will hate us for being greedy”, “nobody would ever pay for this”, “how can we convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past” - I think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why should the membership pay for such things? Alternatively, one could have “LIR services” package and a “the megacombo supersized LIR services and extra” package. Those who want something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve something. The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to reduce expenditure in various ways. What normal companies do when times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual budgetary level by 12.75%. I’m reasonably sure the almost 200 people working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few. Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 04:53 To: Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the
Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly)
AFRINIC. $6m
LACNIC. $10m
APNIC. $22.5m
ARIN. $24m
RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...? to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too. this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels. i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl. randy _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto: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%7C406989697a5244df756e08db46233018%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638180889206199751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TLZNiRRXDcZQ1HAXfZdTGqH0EFlcgNJgMQ3PlIrDy%2Bg%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%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7C406989697a5244df756e08db46233018%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638180889206199751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iz1ROLVplCGojzJr78CF7yO1mN89ZLWI%2BvD5IM5CkJQ%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>
FWIW, the latest EB minutes can be found here [1] and pertain to what options for voting on the charging model will be presented at the GM in May. Everyone might want to take a look at it. [1] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-166th-exe... Kaj From: Kaj Niemi Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:47 To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>; Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; <members-discuss@ripe.net> <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Hi, It would probably be better to not single out a specific service to get rid of just like that but instead objectively look at the services NCC provides and should provide as part of the service commitment to its membership. To figure out whether they really are something a RIR should do as part of its basic services for LIRs or services that are value-add. Some of these services can be categorized as being in the interest of the public, like the K-root. On the other hand, I don't think anything prohibits charging for other services, if NCC truly wanted. Some of the charging models want to introduce transfer fees, for example, and I do believe people pay for RIPE meetings, too. Thinking creatively about some of the things mentioned: * Training and certs * This is a topic where there could actually be a possibility of upselling * many companies have training budgets * many allow employees to choose how to spend rather freely (subject to line manager approval, etc.) * NCC has 14 FTEs doing developing and doing training, spending around 2 million annually on development of said services * One would assume that there would at least be some kind of payback or plan on how to recoup the costs over time * Looking at 2022 financials, at most certifications were a 98k euro business in 2022 but since NCC sold voucher bundles lets assume generously that 50k of revenue was attributable to 2022 and the other half is classed as future revenue. * Conclusion: depending on viewpoint the costs are either 20x or 40x current revenue * Why should the membership pay for this year in, year out? * Suggestion: produce a realistic plan that demonstrates track to, at least, break even for training and certifications that includes spent past costs for X years * Network visibility * According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful * If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value * if there is value it should be possible to charge for it * Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of spent opex for the last X years As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start. Now, if the answers are “we cannot charge for it, people will hate us for being greedy”, “nobody would ever pay for this”, “how can we convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past” - I think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why should the membership pay for such things? Alternatively, one could have “LIR services” package and a “the megacombo supersized LIR services and extra” package. Those who want something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve something. The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to reduce expenditure in various ways. What normal companies do when times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual budgetary level by 12.75%. I’m reasonably sure the almost 200 people working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few. Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility. Kaj -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 04:53 To: Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk<mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl<mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the
Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly)
AFRINIC. $6m
LACNIC. $10m
APNIC. $22.5m
ARIN. $24m
RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...? to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too. this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels. i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl. randy _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto: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%7C406989697a5244df756e08db46233018%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638180889206199751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TLZNiRRXDcZQ1HAXfZdTGqH0EFlcgNJgMQ3PlIrDy%2Bg%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%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7C406989697a5244df756e08db46233018%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638180889206199751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iz1ROLVplCGojzJr78CF7yO1mN89ZLWI%2BvD5IM5CkJQ%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>
All, Is the amount of money that is at stake here, i.e. the individual member fee, worth all this discussion? I don’t want to sound disrespectful against members that operate on tight budgets. But except for the smallest LIRs and hobby enthusiasts, the annual fee that we are discussing should be, excuse the term, peanuts in any case. Of course one can discuss RIPE NCC budget and the value of services this budget produces. But I don’t like it when individual services are questioned for the various reasons, mostly because they are not important to the ones or the others. RIPE is about a community effort, and RIPE NCC’s services should benefit the community as a whole - not individual members. For that reason member fees were traditionally equal for all. Whether you use all of the services, or only a subset. As long as the fee is sufficiently low, you should not care. And I feel it still is sufficiently low. Cheers 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 26 Apr 2023, at 11:47, Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> wrote:
Hi,
It would probably be better to not single out a specific service to get rid of just like that but instead objectively look at the services NCC provides and should provide as part of the service commitment to its membership. To figure out whether they really are something a RIR should do as part of its basic services for LIRs or services that are value-add. Some of these services can be categorized as being in the interest of the public, like the K-root.
On the other hand, I don't think anything prohibits charging for other services, if NCC truly wanted. Some of the charging models want to introduce transfer fees, for example, and I do believe people pay for RIPE meetings, too.
Thinking creatively about some of the things mentioned: […]
Network visibility According to NCC there are about 10k atlas probes, there is RIS, etc. and people seem to find the data produced genuinely useful If the data is useful, it should be possible to quantify its value if there is value it should be possible to charge for it Suggestion: produce a plan that demonstrates roadmap to breakeven of spent opex for the last X years
As a side benefit one would have also diversify revenue away from being 98% to 90% or so membership fees but at least it would be a start.
Now, if the answers are “we cannot charge for it, people will hate us for being greedy”, “nobody would ever pay for this”, “how can we convince someone to buy when we have given it for free in the past” - I think the issue is again that either people do not truly understand the value of the service or by itself is not valuable enough to anyone. The world is full of obscure sources of data for almost any industry charging for their produced/collected data, why should the networking industry be any different? I do not believe it is. In any case, why should the membership pay for such things?
Alternatively, one could have “LIR services” package and a “the megacombo supersized LIR services and extra” package. Those who want something beyond the basics can elect to pay for the extra. Of course, for an organization that would sell SaaS and data, the data should be valuable enough that people pay for it year after year. And the services must then be relevant enough that people elect also to pay for them year after year, one cannot simply invent internal projects to keep busy while the money comes in. If one looks at the annual guides, much of the time seems to be spent on internal projects to improve something.
The ugly truth, however, is that both potentially monetizable services will not be able to cover any larger deficits fees from decreasing membership numbers for quite some years even if they were run with a criterion to at least break even on direct costs. Given enough support a membership desiring to pay less, it would leave as the alternative to reduce expenditure in various ways. What normal companies do when times are tough is first to get rid of consultants. In this case it would reduce costs per member by 255 euro annually or on an annual budgetary level by 12.75%. I’m reasonably sure the almost 200 people working full time can handle things. Similarly, does everyone need to be in Amsterdam and does NCC need to market rates? EU is a large market and there are always alternatives to nearshore within EU. Does NCC really need to have an office in Dubai? Just to name a few.
Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility.
Kaj
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 04:53 To: Paul Newton <paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk <mailto:paul.newton@f4rn.org.uk>> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl <mailto:sander@steffann.nl>>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>>; <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
It's beginning to look like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Spot the odd one out (if I've gathered the data correctly) AFRINIC. $6m LACNIC. $10m APNIC. $22.5m ARIN. $24m RIPE NCC. €42 = $46m
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...?
to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too.
this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels.
i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl.
randy
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/michel.lanners%40lu-c...
On 26/04/2023 12:47, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Lastly, perhaps all of these are great things that should be paid by the membership? Perhaps the real issue at hand is that the 22+ folks in Community Building and Member Engagement, spending 6 million euro inside the External Engagement and Community unit with 42 FTEs spending about 10 million euro annually - 1/4^th of the whole budget - is not able to explain the wonderful benefits to us, so instead some of us send emails on members-discuss list and are seemingly unhappy with the direction things are going? Yeah, dunno, always a possibility.
Kaj
+1 -Hank
On 25/04/2023 4:52, Randy Bush wrote: I love ATLAS. I love BGPplay. I would be willing to pay for those services. But in democracy, it should be voted on by the majority. All NCC services should be itemized and voted upon by the membership. Those services that don't gain a majority, would then be available as ala carte services where any LIR that wants access has to pay extra. Regards, Hank
now list the services provided to operators by each. you wanna get rid of ris, atlas, many dns services, new engineer education, ...?
to compare you will have to fold caida's budget into arin's. oh, and route views's too.
this discussion sometimes reminds me of the US house of representatives debt ceiling discussion. let's cut everything that does not benefit my state, or fossil fuels.
i am a ripe member because of the real services, open community, etc. ya gets what ya pay for. tanstaafl.
randy
_______________________________________________ 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/hank%40interall.co.il
Randy You’re a 100% correct. There needs to be a proper discussion around the overall budget and services etc., but taking a short-termed view and cutting things arbitrarily would be a terrible road to go down. RIPE (and other organisations) do things and provide services to the broader internet community. Personally I’d hate to see them stop doing that. RIPE Atlas for example provides a LOT of very useful data! However I also can sympathise with many members who see some of the fee proposals and immediately ask why on earth the overall expenditure keeps growing etc etc I quite like some of the suggestions that Kaj Niemi provided in an email yesterday – exploring new revenue sources etc., 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.
participants (18)
-
Asta S. -
Ben Cartwright-Cox -
Carlos Friaças -
Daniel Suchy -
David Brůha -
Dominik Vallendor -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
José Manuel Giner -
Kaj Niemi -
Michel Lanners -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Paul Newton -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sebastien Brossier -
Simon-Jan Haytink