On 2 Aug 2011, at 09:17, Peter Heidenreich wrote:

Hello,

we have the same situation and i still wrote an email to agm@ripe.net.

We currently have a /20 and two /21. We are in the billing category "small". With the new charging scheme we are in the category "M" and we have to pay 2.500 EUR per year. Actually we pay 1.600 EUR per year.

I think also that it is not fair that we should pay 900,- more without any benefit!

I would agree that the break point between medium and small looks to be in the wrong place (or right place, depending on which side of the fence you sit!). We have 1 x /21 as our first allocation and 1 x /20 as our second as we used up the first /21 and under the new charging structure we have suddenly become medium because of the extra /21 and are facing a significant price hike. I very much like the idea that I saw where the charges were on a sliding scale, as this strikes me a being far fairer. I know we should pay more for our allocation than someone with a single /21 but I also feel we should pay less than someone with a /16. My thoughts for what they are worth. Drew

I agree with the options expressed in this thread. It doesn't make sense to have XXS and XS categories with smaller than /21 where according to the current rules you can't get anything smaller than /21. Then I believe that the requirement that PI users must be RIPE NCC members is big problem. As an example, we allocated PI space to Italian public administration entities that cannot be members of anything if there is no law allowing them to do so. In this case how can they keep their allocation? Then: we won a 36 months contract with them with strict rules and if we change anything the contract will be cancelled with a penalty; we could not choose the rules because they are fixed with a law. In this case, will the RIPE refund us the damages? What if the public administration sues us for the lost PI allocation damages? I think that changes that have not only a financial impact but also a legal one ( like the one forcing an allocation to be made only to a member ) should apply only to new allocations and not to the existing ones. Otherwise the RIPE will face lots of legal expenses! Il 02/08/2011 10.22, Patrick Kambach ha scritto:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

hi Marcel,

I have a "bad feeling" about the new charing scheme.

1) as Daniel already wrote and you also mentioned: it looks like nearly ever LIR will have to pay more for the same resources. 2) if I understood correctly

"All contracts for any RIPE NCC products or services will be between the RIPE NCC and a member. This means that Direct Assignment Users and other separate service contract holders, such as DNSMON subscribers, must be a RIPE NCC member"

the current "sponsoring" of pi-space by a LIR is not possible any more. So we lose min. 10 customers having this service.

3) if 2) is right, the RIPE will have to get more stuff for all the small /24 pi-space members

For me it's just "making money"; but the RIPE has enough, so why?!

It's nice that they say it's making everything easier, but I guess it's making everything more complex and for all the LIR... will the RIPE pay for the customers I lost when they become members?

The RIPE should fix open topics like asused for ipv6 first and try to save money before they start asking for more.

Br, Patrick

Am 02.08.2011 02:11, schrieb Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de):

...

Hello member,

my LIR has 2x/18, 1x/19, 1x/17 PA-Allocation. When I look right my membership category will be size L. I have to pay 5000 Euro a year, because I have one /19 over /16. I think the price step from category M to category L is to big. 2500Eur -> 5000Eur You should add a category between M and L. It should have this requirements: IPv4:

...

/16,<=/14 price should be 3500 Euro every year

Its not fair, that I have to pay 5000 Euro, instead 2500 Euro, only I have one /19 to much to met requirements for category M!

-- Regards, Marcel Edler

- -- ConnectingBytes GmbH - "www.kambach.net" | In der Steele 35, 40599 Düsseldorf, Germany | Telefon: 0800 / 900 2580 - 1, Fax: 0800 / 900 2580 - 2 | Email: pkambach@kambach.net | Web: http://www.kambach.net | | Geschäftsführer: Patrick Kambach | Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 60009 | Ust-IdNr.: DE815028832, Steuernummer: 106/5736/0037 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk43s7MACgkQCIR+kawbQF1hHgCfTMqwCA5P3rpQOkkStnbEZZHa CeIAoPbPr+vqwp2r/cDPBNFQgS2dOrze =yaI4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

-- Dr.Ing.Paolo Prandini Dr.Paolo Prandini Rottendorfer Str. 1 A-9560 Lindl Austria Telefon +43 (0)42765105 Fax +43 (0)427637590 S.P.E.Sistemi e Progetti Elettronici s.a.s. Via Liguria 5 I-25125 Brescia Italia Telefono +39 0302427266 Fax +39 02700406565 Email prandini@spe.net Web http://www.spe.net CA https://ra.spe.net/pub/cacert/cacert.crt ------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. Persons receiving this e-mail message who are not the named addressee (or his/her co-workers, or persons authorized to take delivery) must not use, forward or reproduce its contents. If you have received this e-mail message by mistake, please contact us immediately and delete this e-mail message beyond retrieval. Die Information dieses e-Mails ist vertraulich und ausschliesslich fuer den Adressaten bestimmt. Der Empfanger dieses e-Mails, der nicht der Adressat ist, (sowie einer seiner Mitarbeiter oder seiner Empfangsberechtigter), darf den Inhalt nicht verwenden, weitergeben oder reproduzieren. Sollten Sie dieses e-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie uns bitte unverzueglich und loeschen Sie das e-Mail unwiederbringlich. Questo messaggio contiene informazioni riservate e confidenziali. Se non siete i destinatari del messaggio (o se avete ricevuto il messaggio per errore) Vi preghiamo di darcene immediata comunicazione ritornandoci il messaggio stesso. Qualsiasi copia, riproduzione in genere, uso o distribuzione del materiale contenuto o allegato al presente messaggio è severamente proibito.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi Rob, I'm not sure, I'm asking ;) My customers have contracts with me; the contracts are ripe-conform, but they have no paperwork signed from the ripe. Br, Patrick Am 02.08.2011 12:05, schrieb Rob Evans:

Paolo, Patrick,

I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the RIPE NCC?

It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? What prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?"

Best, Rob

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

- -- ConnectingBytes GmbH - "www.kambach.net" | In der Steele 35, 40599 Düsseldorf, Germany | Telefon: 0800 / 900 2580 - 1, Fax: 0800 / 900 2580 - 2 | Email: pkambach@kambach.net | Web: http://www.kambach.net | | Geschäftsführer: Patrick Kambach | Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 60009 | Ust-IdNr.: DE815028832, Steuernummer: 106/5736/0037 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk430tYACgkQCIR+kawbQF0tlQCgs9GlS/ttWjn8xEA3jjrvTs61 3XoAoNT0dyfKPMqDLCL4baObKd8tRUKp =eMUy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

heh... ohh my god.... model 2 is looking like 'we need your money' (c) Terminator. I got several calls from our end users about new charging scheme and all of them are shocked from Model 2. =( Model 1 is looking more pretty for me. On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Paolo Prandini <prandini@spe.net> wrote:

Hi Rob, that was my initial understanding of the document. As far as I understood, the new rules are meant not to have any sponsoring LIR any more, but to have all the users of any resource directly refer to the RIPE. I don't understand the purpose of this policy, but that's it. If I am wrong, I would like to receive a clarification from the RIPE.

Il 02/08/2011 12.05, Rob Evans ha scritto:

...

Paolo, Patrick,

I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the RIPE NCC?

It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01?  What prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?"

Best, Rob

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

-- Dr.Ing.Paolo Prandini

Dr.Paolo Prandini Rottendorfer Str. 1 A-9560 Lindl Austria Telefon +43 (0)42765105 Fax     +43 (0)427637590

S.P.E.Sistemi e Progetti Elettronici s.a.s. Via Liguria 5 I-25125 Brescia Italia Telefono +39 0302427266 Fax      +39 02700406565

Email prandini@spe.net Web http://www.spe.net CA https://ra.spe.net/pub/cacert/cacert.crt ------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. Persons receiving this e-mail message who are not the named addressee (or his/her co-workers, or persons authorized to take delivery) must not use, forward or reproduce its contents. If you have received this e-mail message by mistake, please contact us immediately and delete this e-mail message beyond retrieval.

Die Information dieses e-Mails ist vertraulich und ausschliesslich fuer den Adressaten bestimmt. Der Empfanger dieses e-Mails, der nicht der Adressat ist, (sowie einer seiner Mitarbeiter oder seiner Empfangsberechtigter), darf den Inhalt nicht verwenden, weitergeben oder reproduzieren. Sollten Sie dieses e-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie uns bitte unverzueglich und loeschen Sie das e-Mail unwiederbringlich.

Questo messaggio contiene informazioni riservate e confidenziali. Se non siete i destinatari del messaggio (o se avete ricevuto il messaggio per errore) Vi preghiamo di darcene immediata comunicazione ritornandoci il messaggio stesso. Qualsiasi copia, riproduzione in genere, uso o distribuzione del materiale contenuto o allegato al presente messaggio è severamente proibito.

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

-- Andrei Kushnireuski Alfa Telecom s.r.o. REGID: cz.alfatelecom nic-hdl: AK1065-RIPE phone: +420226020360

50% more? Why? Inflation? :-) Am 02.08.2011 13:06, schrieb Rob Evans:

...

heh... ohh my god.... model 2 is looking like 'we need your money' (c) Terminator. I got several calls from our end users about new charging scheme and all of them are shocked from Model 2. =(

Shocked? Why?

You know this is very similar to the current charging model that was brought in following 2007-01 to ensure an ongoing contractual relationship for PI holders, right?

Other than the "new" versus "old" charging bands, the only difference is the increase from EUR50 per resource to EUR100 per resource.

Rob

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Peter Heidenreich SaSG GmbH & Co. KG Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Tel.: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 11 Fax: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 29 eMail: heidenreich@sasg.de Web: www.sasg.de Vertretungsberechtigter Geschäftsführer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht München Handelsregister A (HRA) 90030 Persönlich haftender Gesellschafter: SaSG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Vertretungsberechtigter Geschäftsführer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht München Handelsregister B (HRB) 167324 Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer gemäß § 27a Umsatzsteuergesetz: DE 254 728 254 Steuernummer: 161/174/14705 Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG ist nach § 6 Telekommunikationsgesetz (TKG) gemeldet. Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG unterliegt somit der Aufsicht der: Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Tulpenfeld 4, D - 53113 Bonn Diese eMail inklusive aller Anlagen ist ausschließlich für den Adressaten bestimmt und enthält möglicherweise vertrauliche Informationen. Falls der Empfänger dieser Nachricht nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat oder ein für den Mail-Zugang zuständiger Mitarbeiter oder Vertreter ist, werden Sie hiermit darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass jede Weitergabe, Verteilung, Vervielfältigung oder sonstige Nutzung dieser Nachricht oder ihrer Anlagen verboten ist. Wenn Sie diese Nachricht aus Versehen erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte den Absender per eMail und löschen Sie diese eMail aus Ihrem Computer. Bitte beachten Sie, dass eMail-Eingänge an die persönliche eMail-Adresse des Empfängers mitunter nicht täglich kontrolliert werden und daher eMails für fristgebundene Inhalte nicht geeignet sind! This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and please delete it from your computer. Please note that e-mails to the personal e-mail-address of the receiver of this mail may not be checked on a daily basis and are, therefore, inappropriate for matters subject to a deadline!

As I remember the discussions the introduction of charging for PI was to balance the XXS member alternative. What is the difference between a customer with a PI and an XXS member? If you charge for one should you not charge for the other and since you cannot charge the user of the PI you charge the LIR who allocates it -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rob Evans Sent: 02 August 2011 11:06 To: Paolo Prandini Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Paolo, Patrick, I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the RIPE NCC? It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? What prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?" Best, Rob ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3805 - Release Date: 08/02/11

This is the point I about made a thousand emails ago. As I understand it there is no requirement for a PI user to be a member of RIPE now or under the new proposals although membership now and in the future is desireable. BUT there was a contradiction. Under the old rules if an LIR sponsored a PI user no one paid anything (but some LIRs charged the user). However if the user became a small LIR they paid a membership. RIPE (and the LIR members who went to conference and bothered to read all these proposals earlier - 2 years in the discussion) decided that the best approach was to encourage everyone to come under the RIPE banner and charge for PI assignments or the alternative of a xxs or xs membership. Hearing all the debates this was the best option and avoids users being help to ransom as the IPV4 space dries up. My company became a small LIR 3 years ago as an alternative to a BT sponsored PI. It seems a lot of people want to reinvent the wheel when all this has been gone thru in the rigorous RIPE process - if you didn't join in then don’t complain now. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Laurent Santoul Sent: 08 August 2011 14:30 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Hi Rob, that was my initial understanding of the document. As far as I understood, the new rules are meant not to have any sponsoring LIR any more, but to have all the users of any resource directly refer to the RIPE. I don't understand the purpose of this policy, but that's it. If I am wrong, I would like to receive a clarification from the RIPE. Il 02/08/2011 12.05, Rob Evans ha scritto:

Paolo, Patrick,

I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the RIPE NCC?

It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? What prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?"

Best, Rob

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

-- Dr.Ing.Paolo Prandini Dr.Paolo Prandini Rottendorfer Str. 1 A-9560 Lindl Austria Telefon +43 (0)42765105 Fax +43 (0)427637590 S.P.E.Sistemi e Progetti Elettronici s.a.s. Via Liguria 5 I-25125 Brescia Italia Telefono +39 0302427266 Fax +39 02700406565 Email prandini@spe.net Web http://www.spe.net CA https://ra.spe.net/pub/cacert/cacert.crt ------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. Persons receiving this e-mail message who are not the named addressee (or his/her co-workers, or persons authorized to take delivery) must not use, forward or reproduce its contents. If you have received this e-mail message by mistake, please contact us immediately and delete this e-mail message beyond retrieval. Die Information dieses e-Mails ist vertraulich und ausschliesslich fuer den Adressaten bestimmt. Der Empfanger dieses e-Mails, der nicht der Adressat ist, (sowie einer seiner Mitarbeiter oder seiner Empfangsberechtigter), darf den Inhalt nicht verwenden, weitergeben oder reproduzieren. Sollten Sie dieses e-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie uns bitte unverzueglich und loeschen Sie das e-Mail unwiederbringlich. Questo messaggio contiene informazioni riservate e confidenziali. Se non siete i destinatari del messaggio (o se avete ricevuto il messaggio per errore) Vi preghiamo di darcene immediata comunicazione ritornandoci il messaggio stesso. Qualsiasi copia, riproduzione in genere, uso o distribuzione del materiale contenuto o allegato al presente messaggio � severamente proibito. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3822 - Release Date: 08/08/11

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Simon Talbot wrote:

Have I missed something quite fundimental, but why can't we just keep the current charging model, it seems to work reasonably well and change for change's sake is never a good idea. Also with the level of automation that currently exists, and the good working knowledge that most people have of the systems, we could probably considerably reduced the RIPE's staffing levels and save a great deal of money. In times of belt tightening, even "Not for Profit" organisations like the RIPE must make the same cut backs as those that exist to make a profit.

except for the fact that ripe gets paid anyway :P, its not like anyone would consider cancelling their RIPE lirs just because there "would be a financial crisis" or something :P RIPE's income should be pretty stable, although its -growth- may not be in such times, but that does not affect its rendability.

regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers filter it. works fine within our network, so its probably bgp related either a filter people -actually deliberately installed- or hardcoded into the software.. not sure on that. (240.0.0.0/4 - reserved future/experimental use) furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they don't announce a single ip out of it :P for N in `cat free`;do echo $N.0.0.0/8;whois $N.0.0.0/8|grep -i name:;done 7.0.0.0/8 NetName: DISANET7 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Network DoD OrgTechName: Registration 9.0.0.0/8 NetName: IBM OrgName: IBM Corporation OrgAbuseName: IBM Corporation 21.0.0.0/8 NetName: DNIC-SNET-021 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Network DoD OrgTechName: Registration 22.0.0.0/8 NetName: DNIC-SNET-022 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Network DoD OrgTechName: Registration 25.0.0.0/8 NetName: RIPE-ERX-25 OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgTechName: RIPE NCC Operations netname: UK-MOD-19850128 org-name: DINSA, Ministry of Defence 26.0.0.0/8 NetName: DISANET26 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Registration OrgTechName: Network DoD 28.0.0.0/8 NetName: DNIC-NET-028 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Registration OrgTechName: Network DoD 29.0.0.0/8 NetName: MILX25-TEMP OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Registration OrgTechName: Network DoD 30.0.0.0/8 NetName: DNIC-NET-030 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Registration OrgTechName: Network DoD 37.0.0.0/8 NetName: RIPE-37 OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgTechName: RIPE NCC Operations netname: EU-ZZ-37 org-name: RIPE NCC 45.0.0.0/8 48.0.0.0/8 NetName: PRU48 OrgName: The Prudential Insurance Company of America OrgTechName: Network Administrator OrgAbuseName: Network Administrator OrgNOCName: Network Administrator 51.0.0.0/8 NetName: RIPE-ERX-51 OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgTechName: RIPE NCC Operations netname: UK-DWP org-name: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions 104.0.0.0/8 179.0.0.0/8 NetName: LACNIC-179 OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry OrgTechName: LACNIC Whois Info -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, James Blessing wrote:

On 05/08/2011 14:08, Simon Talbot wrote:

...

Have I missed something quite fundimental, but why can't we just keep the current charging model, it seems to work reasonably well and change for change's sake is never a good idea. Also with the level of automation that currently exists, and the good working knowledge that most people have of the systems, we could probably considerably reduced the RIPE's staffing levels and save a great deal of money. In times of belt tightening, even "Not for Profit" organisations like the RIPE must make the same cut backs as those that exist to make a profit.

I gather the change is not to increase revenue but rather to change the distribution to make it 'fair' and 'easier to understand'. Getting a consensus on what that means appears to have 'winners' on one side and 'losers' on the other.

J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

On Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:30:49AM +0100, Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst wrote:

we would oppose any of the current models, because we consider them unfair.

I agree that there is an element of unfairness here, but not necessarily for the same reasons as are being articulated by others. Kurt's response, whilst wordy, appears to be more in line with my views.

To be fair - in our opinion - a billing scheme should fulfil the following requirements:

- continuous: No steep jumps. A LIR having allocation equivalent to /18 should pay a bit more than a LIR having a /17.

Why should an LIR having a /16 (I assume you mean /16 not /18) pay more than an LIR having a /17? Does it cost more for RIPE to support the LIR with a /16 than the LIR with a /17? Possibly the answer is yes, but it's not because they have a /17 rather than a /16. Consider these two scenarios: a) LIR_1 has been allocated a /16. They were allocated it several years ago. They haven't corresponded with the RIPE NCC in the last year or longer. b) LIR_2 goes back to the RIPE NCC every couple of months to request an additional allocation. Because they don't have a stable growth plan, and they are trying to be conservative with their IP usage, they only get a /21 each time they request an additional allocation. They've now accumulated a /17 worth of allocations. Which LIR should pay more? Certainly LIR_1 is costing RIPE a lot less than LIR_2.

- linear: An IP address should have a price. An LIR with a /12 allocation uses 256 times the resources of an LIR with a /20. This should be reflected in the fee.

No, they don't. See above.

- cover the costs: I think the effort of RIPE is closely related to the number of allocation requests. So each allocation should have a (on time) fee. But this might prove impractical due to increased billing effort.

How about the annual fee, calculated at the end of each calendar year is comprised of: - A base RIPE "membership" fee - A "maintenance" fee for each allocation to the LIR (e.g. EUR 50 per allocation, like the PI blocks) - A "allocation" fee for each allocation made in the previous 12 months.

- Major players pay EUR 5500 at most, which will be less than "peanuts" for them.

Not necessarily. Okay, most LIRs are also ISPs, but not all. You can't assume that for an LIR that a bigger allocation means a bigger revenue stream. Simon

* Christian Wittenhorst:

Of course, they do ;-) IPv4 address space is a scarce and valuable resource now. And a /12 user occupies a lot more that limited resource than a /20 user does.

If someone justifies a /12, Internet is obviously a major part of his business (or he's incredibly huge). And more importantly, he uses a major part of the limited resource. A "fee" of EUR 0.002 per IP is more than reasonable.

I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99

This covers my concern about the fixed cost of membership. So right behind this proposal wiwi Michael Gray Webage At 15:03 03/08/2011, Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst wrote:

On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote:

...

I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to the big player.

Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal:

/22 0.490 /21 0.441 /20 0.319 /19 0.210 /18 0.130 /17 0.078 /16 0.046 /15 0.027 /14 0.016 /13 0.010 /12 0.006 /11 0.004 /10 0.003 /9 0.003 /8 0.002

Best regards,

wiwi

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6347 (20110803) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Michael Gray Managing Director Web Age t: +44 1292 571460 The Walled Garden, Cushats, Ayr, KA6 5LA | Company Number SC166764 | VAT No. GB 680-3292-36

ok, first of all, basing a billing model on the soon-to-be-obsolete-anyway ipv4, is completely retarded and a waste of time, secondly, keep in mind that most of the "big ipv4 players" are PRE-RIR LEGACY blocks anyway, they don't pay anything in the current model anyway, either with arin or with ripe. (registered < 1995) all of the big (firewalled) office networks at multinationals, etc which is where most of the ipv4 space is wasted. furthermore, the "e-class" space is completely unused (244/8 upwards) "experimental use" (just take what you want?!) if you want to recover ipv4 addresses, have a looksie at the 6 or so DoD ranges which are not announced -at all- except for a single /23 or so :P, and at companies like ford and other ones that have /8's.. within the RIPE region, several multinationals with pre-rir larger blocks come to mind (we won't mention names, but a lot of them are not even routed, and if they're routed, they could just as well use NAT ;) but personally, i neither see any reason to change the billing model to "conserve ipv4 space", nor to "recover" ipv4 addresses, nor to keep it artificially alive in any other way... you have ipv6, now use it. if you "need" ipv4, you can just take some of the "e-class" space for all i'm concerned and announce it, for such a short period of time between all access networks being -forced- to support ipv6 by their customer base and google and facebook and akamai and the likes -finally- switching on ipv6 permanently, i'm quite sure the internet can survive on that unregulated stuff. (after a while, nobody wants ipv4 anymore anyway, as there is no need for it anymore the moment the major content parties also figure it out) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst wrote:

On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote:

...

I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to the big player.

Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal:

/22 0.490 /21 0.441 /20 0.319 /19 0.210 /18 0.130 /17 0.078 /16 0.046 /15 0.027 /14 0.016 /13 0.010 /12 0.006 /11 0.004 /10 0.003 /9 0.003 /8 0.002

Best regards,

wiwi

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators less per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not support) then it should be a flat rate. Daniel Kleeman Bridge Partners GB -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44 To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Hi all, I disagree with this approach for two reasons: 1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002 2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come. I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay less than a small operator. My concern is that: a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators. b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW IPv4 addresses in 2014?) Just my 2 euro cents.

...

I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 -

On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to the big player.

Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal:

/22 0.490 /21 0.441 /20 0.319 /19 0.210 /18 0.130 /17 0.078 /16 0.046 /15 0.027 /14 0.016 /13 0.010 /12 0.006 /11 0.004 /10 0.003 /9 0.003 /8 0.002

Best regards,

wiwi

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators less

Can't we just charge IPv4 /24 50 euro as we do with PI. So a /21 8 X 50 = 400. A /20 will be a 800. We can take a RIPE member charge 500,-. I ASN could be 50 or 100. The price can be adjusted annually accordingly after a index. This could be the pricing model for the IP 4 and ASN. The membership could include one /24 and one ASN. I haven't taken the consideration of IP6 space. I /24 could potentially give 64 connections to clients and is well worth 50 I should guess. We can get rid of the XS and XL size system. This should cover RIPE administration expenses. Regards Geir Hotwire Network -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] På vegne av SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling Sendt: 4. august 2011 21:07 Til: members-discuss@ripe.net Emne: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme there is a logic - larger operators will use much more IPv4 space and don't care IPv4 space. New LIR's will not have the chance to do that as each year it will be much restricted from RIPE in fact that IPv4 space is coming more and more rare. A lot of "big LIR" will have a high pool of "not used" IPv4 address but they are not care to reduce/return that space as other can use it. So why a little LIR should only have the right to get a /22 (as we are going to got a LIR in 1997 it was a /19). A used based charge is the only best charge even like "member points". As a gift to be not less supported a idea is to get them more "voices" an the general meeting, more courses place or anythink like this. There is no logic that a small LIR (as they are a lot of all members) should pay the high percentage even the don't use the high ranges of IPv4. Have you asked one time as a small/medium LIR to order a /16 network ?? If a big LIR will ask he will receive without a lot of information. For a small/medium LIR it was like unpossible to get a new /19 in the past as we know it from ourself as we only got a /20 one. bye alex Am 04.08.2011 14:05, schrieb Daniel Kleeman: per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not support) then it should be a flat rate.

Daniel Kleeman Bridge Partners GB

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net

Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44 To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

Hi all,

I disagree with this approach for two reasons:

1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002

2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see

[mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come.

I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay

less than a small operator.

My concern is that:

a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make

a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators.

b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the

allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW

IPv4 addresses in 2014?)

Just my 2 euro cents.

...

...

I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 -

On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to the big player.

Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal:

/22 0.490 /21 0.441 /20 0.319 /19 0.210 /18 0.130 /17 0.078 /16 0.046 /15 0.027 /14 0.016 /13 0.010 /12 0.006 /11 0.004 /10 0.003 /9 0.003 /8 0.002

Best regards,

wiwi

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

an asn could be a few cents. as actually, there are enough asn's to go around for everyone that currently has a single ipv4 ip address (as asn's are 32 bit too ;) and you normally only need 1 or very few of them anyway. (unless ofcourse you finally want to roll out the internet as it was intended, and give every home user their own) in which case an asn should still cost less than a single ipv4 ip, as you don't need to subnet them, there is no waste, and complete networks still just require -1- (serverfarms, office networks, etc) i don't think that if we were to give each and every internet connected party at each and every single one of their locations their own asn, we'd even reach 1/4th of the 32 bit integer size so there actually is no reason for an asn to cost "more" than a single ipv4 address, or a person contact (free) or a role contact (free) or a maintainer contact (free), as they simply, cannot run out. as for the current pi billing model: its not charged per /24, its charged per -resource-. if you wanted a /22 and got 4 /24's you pay four times as much as with the single /22 :P On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Geir Aage Amundsen wrote:

Can't we just charge IPv4 /24 50 euro as we do with PI. So a /21 8 X 50 = 400. A /20 will be a 800. We can take a RIPE member charge 500,-. I ASN could be 50 or 100. The price can be adjusted annually accordingly after a index.

This could be the pricing model for the IP 4 and ASN. The membership could include one /24 and one ASN.

I haven't taken the consideration of IP6 space. I /24 could potentially give 64 connections to clients and is well worth 50 I should guess. We can get rid of the XS and XL size system. This should cover RIPE administration expenses.

Regards

Geir Hotwire Network

-----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] På vegne av SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling Sendt: 4. august 2011 21:07 Til: members-discuss@ripe.net Emne: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

there is a logic - larger operators will use much more IPv4 space and don't care IPv4 space. New LIR's will not have the chance to do that as each year it will be much restricted from RIPE in fact that IPv4 space is coming more and more rare.

A lot of "big LIR" will have a high pool of "not used" IPv4 address but they are not care to reduce/return that space as other can use it. So why a little LIR should only have the right to get a /22 (as we are going to got a LIR in 1997 it was a /19).

A used based charge is the only best charge even like "member points". As a gift to be not less supported a idea is to get them more "voices" an the general meeting, more courses place or anythink like this.

There is no logic that a small LIR (as they are a lot of all members) should pay the high percentage even the don't use the high ranges of IPv4.

Have you asked one time as a small/medium LIR to order a /16 network ?? If a big LIR will ask he will receive without a lot of information. For a small/medium LIR it was like unpossible to get a new /19 in the past as we know it from ourself as we only got a /20 one.

bye alex

...

I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators less

Am 04.08.2011 14:05, schrieb Daniel Kleeman: per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not support) then it should be a flat rate.

...

Daniel Kleeman Bridge Partners GB

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net

...

Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44 To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

Hi all,

I disagree with this approach for two reasons:

1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002

2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see

[mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come.

...

I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay

less than a small operator.

...

My concern is that:

a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make

a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators.

...

b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the

allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW

...

IPv4 addresses in 2014?)

Just my 2 euro cents.

...

...

I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 -

On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to the big player.

Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal:

/22 0.490 /21 0.441 /20 0.319 /19 0.210 /18 0.130 /17 0.078 /16 0.046 /15 0.027 /14 0.016 /13 0.010 /12 0.006 /11 0.004 /10 0.003 /9 0.003 /8 0.002

Best regards,

wiwi

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

On Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:39:28AM +0100, Daniel Suchy wrote:

On 08/03/2011 12:46 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote:

...

Why should an LIR having a /16 (I assume you mean /16 not /18) pay more than an LIR having a /17? Does it cost more for RIPE to support the LIR with a /16 than the LIR with a /17? Possibly the answer is yes, but it's not because they have a /17 rather than a /16.

One of expected RIPE NCC tasks is analysing proper use of allocated resources by each LIR. Mainly, this happens when LIR asks for new resources - but also in other case like LIR audits. And analysis of /16 block is more exacting than /17 analysis.

Mentioned audits aren't classic LIR support - members usually doesn't ask for their audits and of course, these audit costs some money :-)

Oh, indeed, and I see that this is part of what either the "per allocation" fee should cover. I strongly believe that RIPE should not set a "price per IP", as their role is not to create some sort of commercial marketplace for internet objects (be they v4 or v6, or other sorts of things which RIPE allocate like ASNs), but rather to be the registry for these allocated objects. Yes, I accept that a larger allocation request will take more of RIPEs time than a smaller allocation, but we should agree whether a one-size-fits-all pricing model is what we want, or some sort of sliding scale based on the amount of effort which goes into evaluating and registering an allocation request. For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices completely made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use): Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000 Per allocation costs: First Year Subsequent Years IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200 IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50 ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50 Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50 In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE services - Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to have a "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one IPv4, one IPv6 and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE meetings). An analogy here is IX charging (I'll use LINX as an example, as it's the one I'm closest to). You pay a base 'membership fee'. The ports you take on the exchange are like allocations - they come in broad sizings - 100M, 1G, 10G. LINX tried usage based charging (i.e. like paying per IP), and it was hard to bill, and disliked by the members. There's a higher cost to the IX when you first take a port (i.e. get an allocation) - install fee plus service fees - but the ongoing running costs - just service fees - are lower because there's less work to do. Simon

On 04/08/2011 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote:

...

For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices completely made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use):

Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000

Per allocation costs: First Year Subsequent Years IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200

IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50

ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50

Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50

In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE services - Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to have a "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one IPv4, one IPv6 and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE meetings).

This is a much better structure for the membership fees (and easy for a new/existing member to calculate) might be easier to split the first year into a 'successful application fee' and annual fee.

The other thing could be to include 1 ASN, 1 v4 and 1 v6 (regardless of size) in the standard membership fee and then have another category which covered small object holders with out the 'package'.

Would be nice to see how this worked with 'real numbers' rather than holding ones. Some facts: - 44% of all members are in the /21-/20 range - 43% are in the /19-/16 range - 10% are /15 or larger - We need to raise EUR 18M (2011 Budget) - There are 7700 member, so the average fee must be EUR 2330/y. - RIPE wants to encourage small "operations" to join RIPE for

On 2011-08-04 11:48, James Blessing wrote: little money (XS and XSS categories). - One of the bigger members (de.telekom) has about 30 IPv4 allocation, being equivalent to a bit less than a /7. fr.telecom has about 30 allocations equivalent to a /7.5. - The average /18 member seems to hold 1 to 6 IPv4 allocation, which an average around 3 IPv4 allocations. (small sample, so use with caution, please) - RIPE has 22200 ASN. Source: <http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~maigron/RIR_Stats/RIPE_Allocations/IPv4/ByNb/index.html> Interpretation: - a /18 would have to pay around EUR 2300, otherwise there will be no chance of getting the required money. - the base membership fee should be around EUR 250-500, otherwise to high for XXS and XS - the scheme should be fair for the /21-/16 range, they represent 87% of the members and will have to raise 75%+ of the budget in any reasonable scheme. - charging ASN is not really useful, it would need EUR 80/y to cover only 10% of the budget. - There will be almost no new allocations in the near future, so the "subsequent year" amount should cover the costs. James Blessing's scheme would look like: Base Fee: EUR 500 (let's assume 1 allocation IPv4+IPv6 includes, 1 ASN) EUR 800 for a /21 to /18 allocation annually. Otherwise the "typical" /18 would not pay enough to cover the costs. A really large LIR will have to pay 30*EUR 800, about EUR 24k, anyway. Best regards, wiwi

After two days of discussion I'm still trying to find out with all these emails whether the scope is 1) to stop people from asking for IPs by means of charging 2) Need to raise more money and try to find a way to relate that to IP's And also if 3) we'll apply this also to v6 later or just for short term v4? (just for next year??) In the first case my question is why this is raised now and not since 2010 or even 2009 pricing policy when it was discussed to change the overall process due to v4 shortage. We should have done that right then and then. Even more, usage based pricing, it's like punishing a LIR for being good in their market And are able to attract customers. I'm not even considering what was said with regard to objects in the database, since someone that sells service with single IP to each customer, only needs one object in the DB (or a few for each IP block, but no direct link/relation between customer and DB objects), in relation to a LIR that needs to maintain multiple object - one per customer - for larger allocations. I don't really believe LIR's with 100s of object vs small with 10s of objects is something new, it's been this way all these years, Hense the categories of charging. I can understand also what was said about future LIR's that will come into the market After 2013/2014, when for sure/probably(?) RIPE will have no more v4, so they'll be forced To provide only v6 services, but why "punishing" all existing LIRs/SPs/companies because of slow adaptation of v6? (I mean look at the new issue that has come up with Apple OS's that chooses v4 vs v6 depending on delays on the network!!!!!!!!! - NOT happy-eyeballs approach, talk about slow down insentives). And what about companies that have i.e. a /16 and with today's rules don't need more than a /26 or even a /27 ( I know of at least one or two in my region). I have to provide tones of statistics to get a /15,/16 for broadband And there are these companies that have /17,/16 for the corporate offices doing NAT and only 1% of their space is used. In the second case, I can understand the need to revisit charges due to possible Increased/new costs on the part of the NCC and it's operations, but again I can't see the relation with the size of address space one company has, with regard to differentiating from the existing method that is. On the other hand maybe I've been lost in all these emails and completely lost track of the reasoning!!! BR Themis

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 4:09 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

On 04/08/2011 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote:

...

...

For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices completely made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use):

Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000

Per allocation costs: First Year Subsequent Years IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200

IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50

ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50

Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50

In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE services - Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to

have a

...

...

"Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one IPv4, one IPv6 and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE meetings).

I think a "usage-membership-fee" would be much better as a "fix-based-fee" because in relation to a LIR in Medium category and one in high one the smaller LIRs will be a lot more than he will use.

I guess a "usage" depending on the resouces who will be used is much better because it should not be that a big company which have 100times more IP addresses will pay only the double price as a other LIR in a smaller category.

So the fairnest way is to say - fixed membership fee (based on meetings, personal costs, etc.) and a resouce usage fee (based on IPv4 and IPv6 addresses). /19 = 8160 IP - so like 1 IP for 0,01 = 81,6 Euro, if one has a /16 hee will pay 65025 IP = 650,25 Euro and so on.

Only a fee which will reflect the resources will be fine because otherwise each bigger LIR will not be carefull with IPv4 addresses and will order even more because the cost will be the same.

bye alex

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: /22 EUR 502 /21 EUR 904 /20 EUR 1308 /19 EUR 1716 /18 EUR 2132 /17 EUR 2565 /16 EUR 3031 /15 EUR 3562 /14 EUR 4224 /13 EUR 5148 /12 EUR 6597 /11 EUR 9094 /10 EUR 13688 /9 EUR 22477 /8 EUR 39654 In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! I prefer Christian's idea. Regards, Marcel Edler Geschäftsinhaber

+1 as well for be.keytrade (AS43751). We should pay for what we really have. Kind Regards, Arnaud. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Peter Heidenreich Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:50 AM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Hi all, that sounds good and fair. +1 Am 02.08.2011 23:14, schrieb Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de):

Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst,

this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: /22 EUR 502 /21 EUR 904 /20 EUR 1308 /19 EUR 1716 /18 EUR 2132 /17 EUR 2565 /16 EUR 3031 /15 EUR 3562 /14 EUR 4224 /13 EUR 5148 /12 EUR 6597 /11 EUR 9094 /10 EUR 13688 /9 EUR 22477 /8 EUR 39654

In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP!

I prefer Christian's idea.

Regards, Marcel Edler Geschäftsinhaber

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Peter Heidenreich SaSG GmbH & Co. KG Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Tel.: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 11 Fax: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 29 eMail: heidenreich@sasg.de Web: www.sasg.de Vertretungsberechtigter Geschäftsführer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht München Handelsregister A (HRA) 90030 Persönlich haftender Gesellschafter: SaSG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Vertretungsberechtigter Geschäftsführer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht München Handelsregister B (HRB) 167324 Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer gemäß § 27a Umsatzsteuergesetz: DE 254 728 254 Steuernummer: 161/174/14705 Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG ist nach § 6 Telekommunikationsgesetz (TKG) gemeldet. Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG unterliegt somit der Aufsicht der: Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Tulpenfeld 4, D - 53113 Bonn Diese eMail inklusive aller Anlagen ist ausschließlich für den Adressaten bestimmt und enthält möglicherweise vertrauliche Informationen. Falls der Empfänger dieser Nachricht nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat oder ein für den Mail-Zugang zuständiger Mitarbeiter oder Vertreter ist, werden Sie hiermit darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass jede Weitergabe, Verteilung, Vervielfältigung oder sonstige Nutzung dieser Nachricht oder ihrer Anlagen verboten ist. Wenn Sie diese Nachricht aus Versehen erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte den Absender per eMail und löschen Sie diese eMail aus Ihrem Computer. Bitte beachten Sie, dass eMail-Eingänge an die persönliche eMail-Adresse des Empfängers mitunter nicht täglich kontrolliert werden und daher eMails für fristgebundene Inhalte nicht geeignet sind! This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and please delete it from your computer. Please note that e-mails to the personal e-mail-address of the receiver of this mail may not be checked on a daily basis and are, therefore, inappropriate for matters subject to a deadline! ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. _____________________________________________________________________ Keytrade Bank accepts no liability for the content of this email. For more info please visit http://www.keytradebank.com/en/home/maildisclaimer/

Hi all, I also support this model, regardless of number of resources that we have. It is a fair model for everyone. Med venlig hilsen / Best regards Kim Lars Jakobsen It-afdelingen Dr. Neergaards Vej 5F DK-2970 Hørsholm Telefon: 70 20 23 34 Fax: 70 20 23 74 www.itafdelingen.net - klj@itafdelingen.net -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] På vegne af Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) Sendt: 2. august 2011 23:14 Til: members-discuss@ripe.net Emne: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: /22 EUR 502 /21 EUR 904 /20 EUR 1308 /19 EUR 1716 /18 EUR 2132 /17 EUR 2565 /16 EUR 3031 /15 EUR 3562 /14 EUR 4224 /13 EUR 5148 /12 EUR 6597 /11 EUR 9094 /10 EUR 13688 /9 EUR 22477 /8 EUR 39654 In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! I prefer Christian's idea. Regards, Marcel Edler Geschäftsinhaber ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

As a small LIR I like this idea too. However it does ignore the fact that for RIPE, a membership account will carry a fixed cost (administering that membership) and a variable cost (the number of IP addresses allocated). So large ISPs could argue that the below is not exactly "fair" because there is more than the number of IPs allocated to consider in the overall cost of membership. Regards M

...

Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst,

this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: /22 EUR 502 /21 EUR 904 /20 EUR 1308 /19 EUR 1716 /18 EUR 2132 /17 EUR 2565 /16 EUR 3031 /15 EUR 3562 /14 EUR 4224 /13 EUR 5148 /12 EUR 6597 /11 EUR 9094 /10 EUR 13688 /9 EUR 22477 /8 EUR 39654

In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP!

I prefer Christian's idea.

Regards, Marcel Edler Geschäftsinhaber

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6345 (20110802) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Michael Gray Managing Director Web Age t: +44 1292 571460 The Walled Garden, Cushats, Ayr, KA6 5LA | Company Number SC166764 | VAT No. GB 680-3292-36

I think Wittenhorst proposed pricingmodel may be a good idea, but there are also several issues with it (as with the current pricing scheme). Our LIR would have to pay twice the amount that we are currently paying today with Wittenhorsts suggestion. Current price: €1800 New price: €3432 (2x /19's) Perhaps a pricing model shouldn't be based on prefixes but instead on the amount of ip-addresses in a non-linear model. IPv6 addresses and ASNs too. Paying for an "object" in a "database" is kindof silly as there are little or no expenses related to a database itself these days. If it would be up to me I would get 1x /18 instead of 2x /19 in the beginning, but RIPE NCC didn't approve on that. I shouldn't be punished because I am "saving" resources by using /19s instead of a /18 which was forced upon me by RIPE NCC. The amount of "objects" a prefix require in a proprietary database may also be subject to change at any time. On 08/03/11 11:23, James Blessing wrote:

On 02/08/2011 22:14, Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) wrote:

...

In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP!

Er, what about the other db resources? ASNs, IPv6 space, PI etc? If you want a per 'thing' pricing structure would it not be better to charge:

Membership X,000 PA (or X00) db object Y PA (i.e. each object in the db be that a /24 or /8 of v4 space, a /32 or an ASN)

This would then better reflect the 'impact' on the db (it might also encourage a better maintenance of the db) you could of course charge different value for each type of object if the NCC can quantify the 'impact cost' of each type of resource.

J

On Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:18:11PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote:

Paying per object does actually reflect somewhat on the amount of labor/time/effort that the RIPE NCC workforce has to deal with you.

Just for clarity, I believe we should be talking about allocations here, not objects in the database. I have 5 or 6 IPv4 allocations from RIPE. Within those, I probably have over 100 assignment objects recorded in the database. I think it would be fair to be charged based on the number of allocations, as each allocation requires time with the RIPE NCC to process the request. Simon

As RIPE members, our costs are based on RIPE's costs. Something like 2/3rds of RIPE's costs are for personnel. So let's find out what the personnel are doing and why, and charge largely on that. For example, if a large portion of RIPE's personnel are handing requests (allocations, approvals, new ASes, DNS changes, questions, etc), then let's charge something based on the number of "requests". This would more fairly depict how much RIPE spends taking care of a member. Objects and allocations may have something to do with it, but 5 objects in a database cost little more than 1 object or 100 objects. At least the difference is minimal in terms of real-life costs. As an example, we have a /19 (because that's what RIPE decided to give us back when we became a member), but I guess we have only 2-5 real "requests" per year which require human intervention. So why should we be paying for a random (perhaps larger) portion of the RIPE personnel budget instead of just enough to cover our 2-5 requests (plus some overhead, of course)? Just a thought... Cheers, Ray ___ carpeNet Information Technologies GmbH Lorsbacher Str. 4, 65719 Hofheim, Deutschland www.carpe.net T: +49-6192-964400 F: +49-6192-964449 Amtsgericht Frankfurt HRB 41374, Geschäftsführer: Ray Davis On 3. Aug 2011, at 14:21 Uhr, Simon Lockhart wrote:

On Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:18:11PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote:

...

Paying per object does actually reflect somewhat on the amount of labor/time/effort that the RIPE NCC workforce has to deal with you.

Just for clarity, I believe we should be talking about allocations here, not objects in the database.

I have 5 or 6 IPv4 allocations from RIPE. Within those, I probably have over 100 assignment objects recorded in the database.

I think it would be fair to be charged based on the number of allocations, as each allocation requires time with the RIPE NCC to process the request.

Simon

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

2x/19 are equivalent to 1x/18 -> 2132 Euro

I have 1x/17, 2x/18, 1x/19 and its little bit more than /16, so I have to pay for /15 -> 3562 Euro

PI-Space should not count in this Charging Scheme, it should costs 50 Euro/year like now. AS 50Euro/year too.

once again, this completely leaves ipv6 out of consideration, where is the fixed part anyway? or are lirs that don't want any resources but just votes in ripe "free" all of a sudden? in which case, i'll take 20000 lirs please, so i can outvote you and fix the billing scheme again ;P ripe is NOT just a database for IPV4... its membership fees, are not and should not be directly translated into an amount of ipv4 addresses. your proposal ignores: fixed membership fees for the organisational part which applies in case of "empty lirs that just want the votes", as well as for ipv6, which i find no mention of anywhere in your proposal. (guess what, when ipv4 runs out, there will be a shitload of new ipv6 only lirs, as there simply is no ipv4 left to give to them ;) in a few years, there will be plenty ipv6 only lirs, what would they pay? 50 euros for the asn and 50 euros for the /30-/32 ? having them pay only 100 euros and everyone else with (by then obsolete) ipv4 space would be a bit weird wouldn't it... furthermore, they'd start to riot when we then "correct" the billing scheme again and they all of a sudden also have to pay their equal share. (going up from 100 euros to around 2000 euros in one go, without providing them with any additional services - let the riots commence ;) while in fact, they would require an equal part of the organisational costs of ripe to maintain them, as ipv4 lirs. the whole billing scheme is just there to "operate ripe".. its supposed to cover the "operating costs" of ripe, not to translate directly into "how many ipv4 ips you have registered with ripe" (keep in mind, ripe is just a database, you can announce whatever you want anyway, just that its more politically correct towards other isps to communicate it with ripe, as someone has to pay for their offices and staff etc, someone sometime a long long time ago made up this billing model thingy ;) the "database operating costs" and the organisation costs do not translate in any way to the "number of ipv4 addresses" one holds. i'd say we just stick with the current billing model for the time ipv4 is still relevant... then work out a new one later on, when nobody -needs- ipv4 anymore anyway (the moment google and facebook go, everyone will go ;) i can perfectly well see a scenario where it no longer makes sense to keep track of ipv4 (and within a few months even)... and remember kids, ipv4 wasn't the "first" protocol of the internet, the internet and its main part, ARPA, has seen several other protocols, and includes several other networks, some of which ran completely different stuff before gatewaying to "the internet", thereby becoming part of it, ip based or not (compuserve anyone?) (our companies originating from packet radio, which still mostly runs x.25 (with or without ipv4 over it) for example ;) now, there once were databases keeping track of x.25 node names on packet radio (whitepages), should they have been on a paid basis, do you think people would still want to pay for those obsolete registrations nowadays? do you still pay compuserve for your "GO XXXXXXX" name? would you still pay for domain name registrations once only a very few dusty old nerds still use dns ? i don't think it makes much sense to base ripes billing model on ipv4... IT WILL RUN OUT IN A FEW MONTHS ANYWAY, A NEW BILLING MODEL WON'T STOP THAT (especially not since LEGACY PRE-RIR ranges cannot be contractually forced to pay anyway, plus, that kind of company would not care about a few 10000 more or less anyway and still keep the ranges ;) ipv4_having_run_out && google_and_facebook_and_akamai_supporting_v6 == instant force of all access networks to switch -now- == forcing the rest of the content to do the same (porn). any day now... and you want to go through the process of re-building ripes billing model, based on ipv4... in 2011... come back 15 years ago, when ipv4 was still relevant, if we do this now, we have to re-do the thing in a few months time anyway.

Regards, Marcel Edler

---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

Hi, Am 03.08.11 22:48, schrieb Christopher Kunz:

...

once again, this completely leaves ipv6 out of consideration, where is

Taking IPv6 into consideration doesn't change the overall equation a lot, IMHO.

what also gets widely ignored by many (not all, though) in this discussion is that RIPE/RIPE NCC is not just an IP dealer, but a whole lot more - don't forget all the training courses (which esp. are targeted for new and therefore mostly small members), all the cool stuff done by RIPE Labs, representation, etc. pp. In the end, just counting IPv4 addresses seems a bit _too simple_ to me. [x] spent 2¢ Malte -- Malte von dem Hagen Head of Network Engineering & Operations ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Host Europe GmbH - http://www.hosteurope.de Welserstraße 14 - 51149 Köln - Germany Telefon: 0800 467 8387 - Fax: +49 180 5 66 3233 (*) HRB 28495 Amtsgericht Köln - USt-IdNr.: DE187370678 Geschäftsführer: Patrick Pulvermüller, Thomas Vollrath (*) 0,14 EUR/Min. aus dem dt. Festnetz; maximal 0,42 EUR/Min. aus den dt. Mobilfunknetzen

Hi Christian & Marcel, Upfront, sorry for the rather lengthy reply. In regards of the 'wiwi' model, it does looks like a nice start for the payment, when looking at just IPv4 PA. But what about the other objects ? How would one look at current legacy holders ? Are those excluded or would they fall within the model for the number of resources they would actually have obtained through RIPE ? (at minimum a /22 read Euro 502 ). On the part of PI space, would you say, let's include that in the current list. In our particular case, we have a /21 and a /17 in PA. We have 10 PI objects requested for customers, for which we almost use a /19 in total. Currently that would cost us 500 euro (roughly as some of the assignments on PI are /23's with a /24.. but still let's keep it easy). We also have 8 AS's currently listed in the LIR portal, of which we actually use 1 for ourselves and the others are in use by customers. In the 'wiwi' table, we would fall with the /17 and the /21 in the /16 category. Including the PI space in the same table, we would still be below the /16 and we wouldn't have any additional cost. However I'm pretty sure that RIPE would much rather hand us PA instead of PI as each PI request need to be carefully documented / administrated, put to a name / company / address / requirement. And there is no additional income to off-set that labor. As a LIR we charge for requesting (handling) of PI space, regardless if it is approved by RIPE or not. ( We don't do charity in that respect.) If approved, the customer gets an invoice for the handling of the request to RIPE (600 euro one time) and a yearly maintenance fee of 200 euro for the initial /24. Each additional /24 cost 20 euro. So a customer with a /21 would get an initial invoice of 600 euro plus 340 euro for the maintenance. Still cheaper for that customer to deal with us and let us deal with RIPE than to sign-up with RIPE as a LIR and have to learn the lingo. ( mind you in the current situation, which breaks when the pool is going into the last /8.) On the part for handling of the resources on the side of RIPE, there is a cost per object and personally I think it should stay. Personally I would even advocate that both PI IPv4 and PI IPv6 should have a price tag around 200 Euro per object. That is purely because of the amount of time that is required to administrate the object and to make it clear to customers that this is not something one could just request for fun. Also, if someone could not cough up the cost for the PI, there is also no business case why they would need it in the first place. This also goes imho for starting to become a LIR. Now we will likely see an increase in the request of PI space in the last part of 2011. We already have more request for PI per month than let's say a year ago. And that will be the case is my estimation until RIPE is sold - out. That will likely be the moment where RIPE will see an increase in the number of LIR's, basically with the a similar profile that before would go for PI space. They would sign-up for a membership, get a /22 with close to no limitations on how to use it or qualifications, they buy their way into the LIR community and get served. Now on the part of the 2 smallest LIR memberships.. the baby sized LIRs, it would be my recommendation to skip the initial 2 steps in the 'wiwi table' and/or the 2 smallest LIR membership in the original Charging scheme 2012. Especially because the once the resource pool is empty and there will only be the last /8 to be divided, one should have a damn good reason imho to be able to tap into that. At least 1300 euro's worth of a yearly upkeep. Especially the initial year is taking more time and effort (by RIPE) from a LIR, so why lower the cost for more smaller entries and increase the workload ? In my view that doesn't scale from an economic point of view. Seeing that the XXS LIR membership would have IPv6 smaller than a /32 .. IPv4 < /22 and only a 250 euro setup fee.. Come on. Are there any kind of limitations that the board is planning in that model ? Like if you request more that you would need to pay the difference of the setup fee to become a full-member ? Could one actually request beyond the initial request IPv6 if they have < /32 or more AS's ? It is only allowed ( by 2010-02 as I recall ) that a LIR can only have 1 allocation from the final /8 on IPv4. <begin Quote 2010-02> 1.Allocations for LIRs from the last /8 On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following: 1.LIRs may only receive one allocation from this /8. The size of the allocation made under this policy will be exactly one /22. </end Quote 2010-02> Anyway .. still lots of questions. Erik Bais