RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya
Privyet Natalya Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya
Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE?
I guess Natalya is referring to this message: From: Fergal Cunningham <fergalc@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-announce] Proposed Draft Charging Scheme 2010 To: ncc-announce@ripe.net, regional-russia@ripe.net Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:54:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4A38BD4C.9050608@ripe.net> -- 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
Thanks for sharing with everyone that you can't find that... duhhh! -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:22 PM To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Privyet Natalya Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi Mark, the document was announced by Axel Pawlik / Fergal Cunningham yesterday on the maillist ncc-announce. The draft will be available in July 2009. Cheers, Patrick - --- Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: - - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. - --- Am 18.06.2009 13:22, schrieb Hostmaster:
Privyet Natalya
Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE?
Mark
- -- 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 v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFKOio7CIR+kawbQF0RArVYAKC3dNDyaSGd9DBzWj+AMnFg8YDIOgCeOpXl T+OiG0tSS3yOvRnuef/Vwas= =T6vE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi All! There's no such document in RIPE database. But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: "[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC" Kind Regards Sergey Sulava -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Privyet Natalya Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya *Disclaimer:* This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. *Ограничения:* Данное сообщение (включая любые вложения) может содержать конфиденциальную информацию и быть предназначенным исключительно для личности или организации, которой оно адресовано. Если Вы не являетесь надлежащим адресатом, то настоящим Вы уведомлены, что любое раскрытие, копирование, распространение или использование содержания этого сообщения строго запрещено.
Ripe, Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally irrelevant to us and is filling our mailbox with junk. You may have the following e-mail addresses on record, servicedesk@adaptplc.com support@mnet.co.uk hostmaster@adaptplc.com hostmaster@mnet.co.uk please remove them all. Regards, Raj Bola Service Desk Manager adapt New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1NH t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 e: servicedesk@adaptplc.com www.adaptplc.com adapt, the independent managed services provider offering the broadest choice of next generation technologies, and doing right by our customers. adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Hi All! There's no such document in RIPE database. But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this: "[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme. The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be: - As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009. The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues. Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at <members-discuss@ripe.net>. Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC" Kind Regards Sergey Sulava -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Privyet Natalya Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE? Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 RegID: kz.kazaktelecom Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya *Disclaimer:* This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. *Ограничения:* Данное сообщение (включая любые вложения) может содержать конфиденциальную информацию и быть предназначенным исключительно для личности или организации, которой оно адресовано. Если Вы не являетесь надлежащим адресатом, то настоящим Вы уведомлены, что любое раскрытие, копирование, распространение или использование содержания этого сообщения строго запрещено. This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com
Ripe, Please remove nafis@dwaalster.nl as well from the list thank you Nafis 2009/6/18 Adapt Service Desk <servicedesk@adaptplc.com>
Ripe,
Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally irrelevant to us and is filling our mailbox with junk.
You may have the following e-mail addresses on record,
servicedesk@adaptplc.com support@mnet.co.uk hostmaster@adaptplc.com hostmaster@mnet.co.uk
please remove them all.
Regards, Raj Bola Service Desk Manager
adapt New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1NH t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 e: servicedesk@adaptplc.com
www.adaptplc.com
adapt, the independent managed services provider offering the broadest choice of next generation technologies, and doing right by our customers.
adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Hi All!
There's no such document in RIPE database. But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this:
"[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme.
The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be:
- As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment
The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009.
The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues.
Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at <members-discuss@ripe.net>.
Best regards,
Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC"
Kind Regards Sergey Sulava
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hostmaster Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Privyet Natalya
Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE?
Mark
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
RegID: kz.kazaktelecom
Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya
*Disclaimer:* This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
*Ограничения:* Данное сообщение (включая любые вложения) может содержать конфиденциальную информацию и быть предназначенным исключительно для личности или организации, которой оно адресовано. Если Вы не являетесь надлежащим адресатом, то настоящим Вы уведомлены, что любое раскрытие, копирование, распространение или использование содержания этого сообщения строго запрещено.
This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com
-- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Nafis Dwaalster
Hiya, to everyone who is complaining about this e-mail mailing list. If you actual don't want to receive these E-Mails, please login to your LIR account at http://lirportal.ripe.net/ , click on General, click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add/remove E-Mail addresses for these mailing lists. RIPE nor we aren't guilty that you receive these e-mails. If you feel bothered, you should just take a look inside the LIR portal as written above :-) Cheers! Nafis Dwaalster wrote:
Ripe,
Please remove nafis@dwaalster.nl <mailto:nafis@dwaalster.nl> as well from the list
thank you
Nafis
2009/6/18 Adapt Service Desk <servicedesk@adaptplc.com <mailto:servicedesk@adaptplc.com>>
Ripe,
Please remove us from this discussion thread. It is totally irrelevant to us and is filling our mailbox with junk.
You may have the following e-mail addresses on record,
servicedesk@adaptplc.com <mailto:servicedesk@adaptplc.com> support@mnet.co.uk <mailto:support@mnet.co.uk> hostmaster@adaptplc.com <mailto:hostmaster@adaptplc.com> hostmaster@mnet.co.uk <mailto:hostmaster@mnet.co.uk>
please remove them all.
Regards, Raj Bola Service Desk Manager
adapt New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1NH t: +44 (0)845 304 3046 e: servicedesk@adaptplc.com <mailto:servicedesk@adaptplc.com>
www.adaptplc.com <http://www.adaptplc.com>
adapt, the independent managed services provider offering the broadest choice of next generation technologies, and doing right by our customers.
adapt to success! We're ranked 15th in the 2008 Tech Track 100.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of ?????? ?????? Sent: 18 June 2009 12:56 To: Hostmaster; Natalya Petrova; members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Hi All!
There's no such document in RIPE database. But I suppose Natalya is speaking about this:
"[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC is currently formulating the Draft Charging Scheme 2010. The Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will take into account the requirements of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", and the discussions that took place at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2009 regarding the 2010 Charging Scheme.
The main features of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 will be:
- As in previous years, there will be five membership categories - Extra Small, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large - The 2010 fee for each membership category will be the same as for 2009 - An algorithm will determine a score that decides what category a member belongs to - The score will be based on Provider Aggregatable (PA) IPv4 and PA IPv6 allocated over time - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment
The RIPE NCC will publish the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 at the beginning of July 2009. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will then monitor discussion and input from the RIPE NCC membership before publishing a final version of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 by 9 September 2009. The RIPE NCC membership will vote on this version at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 7 October 2009.
The RIPE NCC notes that this proposal for the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 is subject to change based on advice from the RIPE NCC's lawyers on tax and legal issues.
Membership discussion of the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 proposal can take place at <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>.
Best regards,
Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC"
Kind Regards Sergey Sulava
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Hostmaster Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:22 PM To: Natalya Petrova; members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Privyet Natalya
Where is this document? I cant see it on RIPE?
Mark
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: 18 June 2009 11:29 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
RegID: kz.kazaktelecom
Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya
*Disclaimer:* This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
*Ограничения:* Данное сообщение (включая любые вложения) может содержать конфиденциальную информацию и быть предназначенным исключительно для личности или организации, которой оно адресовано. Если Вы не являетесь надлежащим адресатом, то настоящим Вы уведомлены, что любое раскрытие, копирование, распространение или использование содержания этого сообщения строго запрещено.
This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com <http://www.adaptplc.com>
-- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards,
Nafis Dwaalster
-- Sven Wiese General Director I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 843104 [e] s.wiese@trabia.net [i] www.trabia.net Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.
Eh, I conclude that ripe actually is trying to push network operators to become a LIR, while actually those should be seperated functions, a LIR can just be an office with no network whatsoever, just like an insurance agent doesn't run the insurance company. Although they have done this for quite some time (asking our clients rediculous questions such as wether they would not rather become a LIR themselves eventhough they only operate a network for their own services). (and i'm getting pretty tired of them trying to do so and thereby preventing LIRs from doing what they are supposed to to in a swift and practical way, prolonging the process by several days to weeks and bugging LIR and clients with stupid questions) furthermore it's wrong that IP space is hereby assigned a monetary value, as the sole function of LIRs is to distribute that IP space to end-users, RIPE already gets plenty of cash from the LIRs just for being a LIR, requesting additional payment for PI space registrations is pretty much against the whole existing points-billing-model. Instead of asking 50 euros per assignment per ??year/month/cow/whatever??, it would make more sense to check if assignments are actually announced and if they are not, delete them after 3 years or so. also with the introduction of 32 bit AS numbers and IPv6 neither PI space, nor AS numbers are going to run out anywhere within our life time, so actually i don't see the point of even keeping them linked to the current points system at all, let alone introduce new fees. the whole idea behind the rirs and lirs is to -distribute- ip space, so that people don't just have to "grab their own". not to make money, should that become the case, we could just as well go back to the "just grab yourself some address space" approach like still is the case on some other larger linked networks. RIPE should not be in the business of trying to run a profit on it, their only purpose is to make sure the resources don't run out (which neither 32 bit AS numbers nor IPv6 PI space ever will, and IPv4 will become significantly less wanted before it even gets the chance to "run out" anyway). so this is a "solution" to a non-existing "problem".. besides, anyone looked at their concept-contract? it's like 3 meters long! wtf.. our "contracts" are usually verbal and go like "we will register some PI space for you, if you pay us EUR 2500 "Administration fee" for the work (and yes, due to RIPE's pain in the butt-ness regarding PI space, its a lot of work ;), for which you will receive an invoice which needs to be paid before $date". and that's about it and should suffice. (with most of our PI/AS clients, we do not actually route their network for them, they get local companies to do that for them.) -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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 Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Natalya Petrova wrote:
RegID: kz.kazaktelecom
Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA? 2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year? 3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)? 4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)? I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
* Sven Olaf Kamphuis:
furthermore it's wrong that IP space is hereby assigned a monetary value, as the sole function of LIRs is to distribute that IP space to end-users, RIPE already gets plenty of cash from the LIRs just for being a LIR, requesting additional payment for PI space registrations is pretty much against the whole existing points-billing-model.
The fee is just a kludge to make sure that RIPE can recover the resource when the assignee lost interest in it.
Instead of asking 50 euros per assignment per ??year/month/cow/whatever??, it would make more sense to check if assignments are actually announced and if they are not, delete them after 3 years or so.
RIPE policies separate address assignment from (capital-I Internet) routing, so this can't work.
also with the introduction of 32 bit AS numbers and IPv6 neither PI space, nor AS numbers are going to run out anywhere within our life time, so actually i don't see the point of even keeping them linked to the current points system at all, let alone introduce new fees.
There are two opposing opinions on this matter. One side claims we're moving towards scarce resources. The other side claims exactly the opposite. (I'm siding with the latter.) We should move this discussion to the address-policy working group mailing list, but I think the topic has already been hashed out over there. -- 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
FULL ACK You spoke like out of my soul... Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
Eh, I conclude that ripe actually is trying to push network operators to become a LIR, while actually those should be seperated functions, a LIR can just be an office with no network whatsoever, just like an insurance agent doesn't run the insurance company.
Although they have done this for quite some time (asking our clients rediculous questions such as wether they would not rather become a LIR themselves eventhough they only operate a network for their own services).
(and i'm getting pretty tired of them trying to do so and thereby preventing LIRs from doing what they are supposed to to in a swift and practical way, prolonging the process by several days to weeks and bugging LIR and clients with stupid questions)
furthermore it's wrong that IP space is hereby assigned a monetary value, as the sole function of LIRs is to distribute that IP space to end-users, RIPE already gets plenty of cash from the LIRs just for being a LIR, requesting additional payment for PI space registrations is pretty much against the whole existing points-billing-model.
Instead of asking 50 euros per assignment per ??year/month/cow/whatever??, it would make more sense to check if assignments are actually announced and if they are not, delete them after 3 years or so.
also with the introduction of 32 bit AS numbers and IPv6 neither PI space, nor AS numbers are going to run out anywhere within our life time, so actually i don't see the point of even keeping them linked to the current points system at all, let alone introduce new fees.
the whole idea behind the rirs and lirs is to -distribute- ip space, so that people don't just have to "grab their own". not to make money, should that become the case, we could just as well go back to the "just grab yourself some address space" approach like still is the case on some other larger linked networks.
RIPE should not be in the business of trying to run a profit on it, their only purpose is to make sure the resources don't run out (which neither 32 bit AS numbers nor IPv6 PI space ever will, and IPv4 will become significantly less wanted before it even gets the chance to "run out" anyway).
so this is a "solution" to a non-existing "problem"..
besides, anyone looked at their concept-contract? it's like 3 meters long! wtf..
our "contracts" are usually verbal and go like "we will register some PI space for you, if you pay us EUR 2500 "Administration fee" for the work (and yes, due to RIPE's pain in the butt-ness regarding PI space, its a lot of work ;), for which you will receive an invoice which needs to be paid before $date". and that's about it and should suffice. (with most of our PI/AS clients, we do not actually route their network for them, they get local companies to do that for them.)
-- Sven Wiese General Director I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 843104 [e] s.wiese@trabia.net [i] www.trabia.net Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.
Sven, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
Instead of asking 50 euros per assignment per ??year/month/cow/whatever??, it would make more sense to check if assignments are actually announced and if they are not, delete them after 3 years or so.
this is the key point. Visibility of any (including PA) network from $point_of_Internet is NOT a mandatory. Some PI is only from interconnecting N networks and not for global routing. And also, due to current Internet structure, you can't garant global reachability of any network. You can see it through looking glassess - "full view" size some times more than 10% different from LG to LG.
so this is a "solution" to a non-existing "problem"..
If you know how to catch dead DAs other than recurring fee - where you was when 2007-01 was in discussion phase?
besides, anyone looked at their concept-contract? it's like 3 meters long!
We have own contract for DAs, it is accepted by RIPE NCC hostmasters. It has only 4 pages.
our "contracts" are usually verbal and go like "we will register some PI space for you, if you pay us EUR 2500 "Administration fee" for the work
OMG! Our fee is 10 times less :) and 100 EUR annual as for the biggest case in 2010 charging scheme proposal. Anyone are welcome! =) Anyway, how you are catching your dead DAs, if any? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Some observations on the announcement.. If RIPE are going to put out an announcement that will end up creating a lot of discussion it would be helpful to provide more clarity rather than just create confusion. Aside, as a whole these changes to administration of PI space have been confusing and difficult to follow, IMO. 1. 50 EUR per what time period? 2. It's not clear if this is the LIR fee or end user fee? 3. If the charging score is only going to be based on PA space then some re-jigging of the numbers might be in order. For example, as a SMALL LIR with some PI and AS for customers we'll will still be classed as SMALL if we have both the smallest of both a single v4 assignment and a v6 assignment. My point here is that as soon as a new LIR takes some v6 PA space it's going to cost them more money to jump up from EXTRA SMALL to SMALL. What motivation here is there for new members to start looking at v6 straight away? It gives additional cost for doing v6 but there may not be a business case for a small provider. At least when PI and AS also contributed there was some direct attached cost relevant to the business associated with customer revenues on those PI/AS objects. Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com
I really like this conversation!! I myself also have some questions, some are the same than yours, but I hope I know some answers as well - but these are y answers, and of course they are far far away from being official, just my reading! I guess that 50EUR per year would be charged to the LIR (if the end user is not in contractual relationship with RIPE - which is I think the case in this context!) But what is the moment in time when the LIR is elected to pay this fee? The end-user can change the LIR during the year - can not he? Anyway - this will costs some for the end user as well, but that fee will be charged by the contracted LIR. What happens to the LIRs with quarterly and yearly fee schedule? Should there be any difference? I guess no... 50EUR per end user, or per database entry, (providing that I hit the bulls eye with the one year period), orper transaction? What happens to the assignments which are assigned and deleted within the same billing period? I consider the not-aging PI resources logical... although the billing procedure and the cost estimation will be much more difficult. Maybe two bills would be better, or at least two lines on the bill, one for the yearly fee, and another for the currently introduced per-entry fees - or a complete detailed bill which enumerates all the unique assignments. Heidrich Attila vezető fejlesztőmérnök Invitel Zrt. 6724 Szeged, Rókusi krt. 2-10. iroda: +36 62 777574 fax: +36 62 471122 mobil: +36 20 9357792 www.invitel.hu SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paul Civati Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:36 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Some observations on the announcement.. If RIPE are going to put out an announcement that will end up creating a lot of discussion it would be helpful to provide more clarity rather than just create confusion. Aside, as a whole these changes to administration of PI space have been confusing and difficult to follow, IMO. 1. 50 EUR per what time period? 2. It's not clear if this is the LIR fee or end user fee? 3. If the charging score is only going to be based on PA space then some re-jigging of the numbers might be in order. For example, as a SMALL LIR with some PI and AS for customers we'll will still be classed as SMALL if we have both the smallest of both a single v4 assignment and a v6 assignment. My point here is that as soon as a new LIR takes some v6 PA space it's going to cost them more money to jump up from EXTRA SMALL to SMALL. What motivation here is there for new members to start looking at v6 straight away? It gives additional cost for doing v6 but there may not be a business case for a small provider. At least when PI and AS also contributed there was some direct attached cost relevant to the business associated with customer revenues on those PI/AS objects. Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com -------------- Ezen uzenet kizarolag a cimzettjenek szol es olyan bizalmas jellegu informaciokat tartalmazhat, amelyek feltarasat jogszabaly vagy szerzodes tiltja. Amennyiben a jelen uzenetet On teves kezbesites folytan kapta, kerjuk haladektalanul ertesitsen bennunket es az uzenetet annak csatolmanyaival egyutt torolje. Amennyiben On nem cimzettje a jelen uzenetnek, annak es mellekleteinek elolvasasa, masolasa, tovabbitasa, vagy barmely celbol torteno felhasznalasa szigoruan tilos. Megjegyezzuk, hogy az e-mail utjan torteno kozlesek nem garantaljak az elkuldott uzenetek bizalmas jellegenek es teljessegenek megorzeset, valamint az uzenetek megfelelo kezbesiteset. A fentieken tulmenoen, a Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., annak kapcsolt vallalkozasai, illetve az altaluk megbizott harmadik felek a jelen e-mail cimrol kuldott, vagy arra erkezo barmely uzenetet ellenorizhetnek, lemasolhatnak, felhasznalhatnak vagy harmadik fel reszere tovabbithatnak. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain confidential information protected from disclosure by law or contract. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and delete it together with its attachments. If you are not an addressee of this message, reading, copying, distribution or use for any purpose of the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly forbidden. Additionally, please note that communication by email guarantees neither the confidentiality nor the completeness or proper receipt of the messages sent. Furthermore, Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., its affiliates and third parties retained by them may monitor, copy, use or forward to third parties any outgoing messages from and incoming messages to this email address
This is a very good point . We would have started as very small and to move to V^ is hard enough without a cost penalty. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Paul Civati Sent: 18 June 2009 13:36 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Some observations on the announcement.. If RIPE are going to put out an announcement that will end up creating a lot of discussion it would be helpful to provide more clarity rather than just create confusion. Aside, as a whole these changes to administration of PI space have been confusing and difficult to follow, IMO. 1. 50 EUR per what time period? 2. It's not clear if this is the LIR fee or end user fee? 3. If the charging score is only going to be based on PA space then some re-jigging of the numbers might be in order. For example, as a SMALL LIR with some PI and AS for customers we'll will still be classed as SMALL if we have both the smallest of both a single v4 assignment and a v6 assignment. My point here is that as soon as a new LIR takes some v6 PA space it's going to cost them more money to jump up from EXTRA SMALL to SMALL. What motivation here is there for new members to start looking at v6 straight away? It gives additional cost for doing v6 but there may not be a business case for a small provider. At least when PI and AS also contributed there was some direct attached cost relevant to the business associated with customer revenues on those PI/AS objects. Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.76/2183 - Release Date: 06/18/09 05:53:00
Paul, as I can see, it is clear: Paul Civati wrote:
1. 50 EUR per what time period?
Annual.
2. It's not clear if this is the LIR fee or end user fee?
LIR. As 2007-01 it is on the LIR decision how much to charge their DA customer. We decided to charge 100 EUR, for example.
3. If the charging score is only going to be based on PA space then some re-jigging of the numbers might be in order.
The main score is only going from PA allocations. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Natalya, Natalya Petrova wrote:
RegID: kz.kazaktelecom
Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA?
According to the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 the 50 Euro per resource applies to IPv4 and IPv6 PI Assignments, AS numbers, Internet Exchange Point and Anycasting Assignments. PA IPv4 and IPv6 Allocations will instead determine the member billing category.
2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year?
The 50 Euro fee per Assignment would be charged on a yearly basis. With regards to payment terms, you will receive the invoice according to the Billing scheme chosen by your LIR (quarterly, half-yearly, yearly invoices).
3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)?
According to the current proposal, the 50 Euro fee will be charged per Assignment. The charge will not depend on the number of IP Addresses the Assignment is made of.
4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)?
All Assignments made since 1992 will be included. With the implementation of RIPE Policy "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", LIRs have the possibility to inform the RIPE NCC which independent resources should stay with the LIR and which should be moved (End User not their customer). The resources which will be moved, will be marked and excluded from your LIR's 2010 invoice. Please see: http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html I hope this clarifies. Kind regards, Andrea Cima Customer Services Manager RIPE NCC
I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAko6N7wACgkQXOgsmPkFrjMsUgCeI+i5n2Q/AevvibMsNeKLpaP0 ELgAn2979ttiRN/6jqW4O1Id6v6aMHYj =nteg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear Andrea, will be implemented 'LIR change' for DA holders? It is possible for the LIR owner to register a new LIR for a new company, then to sign new contracts with DA holders (transfer DA to new LIR), and do not pay the yearly invoice? You wrote Thursday, June 18, 2009, 2:49:00 PM:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Natalya,
Natalya Petrova wrote:
RegID: kz.kazaktelecom
Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA?
According to the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 the 50 Euro per resource applies to IPv4 and IPv6 PI Assignments, AS numbers, Internet Exchange Point and Anycasting Assignments.
PA IPv4 and IPv6 Allocations will instead determine the member billing category.
2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year?
The 50 Euro fee per Assignment would be charged on a yearly basis. With regards to payment terms, you will receive the invoice according to the Billing scheme chosen by your LIR (quarterly, half-yearly, yearly invoices).
3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)?
According to the current proposal, the 50 Euro fee will be charged per Assignment. The charge will not depend on the number of IP Addresses the Assignment is made of.
4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)?
All Assignments made since 1992 will be included.
With the implementation of RIPE Policy "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", LIRs have the possibility to inform the RIPE NCC which independent resources should stay with the LIR and which should be moved (End User not their customer).
The resources which will be moved, will be marked and excluded from your LIR's 2010 invoice. Please see: http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html
I hope this clarifies. Kind regards,
Andrea Cima Customer Services Manager RIPE NCC
I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya
-- Kind regards, sergey myasoedov
sergey, it is possible and legal, but smells very very bad. I thing we should do something against it. sergey myasoedov wrote:
Dear Andrea,
will be implemented 'LIR change' for DA holders?
It is possible for the LIR owner to register a new LIR for a new company, then to sign new contracts with DA holders (transfer DA to new LIR), and do not pay the yearly invoice?
You wrote Thursday, June 18, 2009, 2:49:00 PM:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Natalya,
Natalya Petrova wrote:
RegID: kz.kazaktelecom
Good morning, dear colleagues! Thanks for your message. I have read on a site the information be relative Charging Scheme 2010. There are some questions for me. I ask the help in the explanatory. Questions: 1) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It mentions only PI? or PA? or PI+PA?
According to the Draft Charging Scheme 2010 the 50 Euro per resource applies to IPv4 and IPv6 PI Assignments, AS numbers, Internet Exchange Point and Anycasting Assignments.
PA IPv4 and IPv6 Allocations will instead determine the member billing category.
2) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It every month a payment? or every quarter? or for a year?
The 50 Euro fee per Assignment would be charged on a yearly basis. With regards to payment terms, you will receive the invoice according to the Billing scheme chosen by your LIR (quarterly, half-yearly, yearly invoices).
3) "fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - It is payment for what quantity of addresses (50EUR= ? IPs)?
According to the current proposal, the 50 Euro fee will be charged per Assignment. The charge will not depend on the number of IP Addresses the Assignment is made of.
4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)?
All Assignments made since 1992 will be included.
With the implementation of RIPE Policy "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", LIRs have the possibility to inform the RIPE NCC which independent resources should stay with the LIR and which should be moved (End User not their customer).
The resources which will be moved, will be marked and excluded from your LIR's 2010 invoice. Please see: http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html
I hope this clarifies. Kind regards,
Andrea Cima Customer Services Manager RIPE NCC
I shall be very grateful for explanatories. Thanks for the help and understanding. Yours faithfully, Natalya
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote:
4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)?
All Assignments made since 1992 will be included.
I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs for allocations made in 1995 is wrong. Regards, Hank Nussbacher
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote:
4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)?
All Assignments made since 1992 will be included.
I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs for allocations made in 1995 is wrong.
It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which is not happening. What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year (well, the draft price). It's like an update of pricing or the terms and conditions, so you can consider to either give your allocation back and won't be charged in the future or you'll pay the price. This has nothing to do with retroactively charging. It's just a change of the fee from now and on. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which is not happening.
What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year (well, the draft price).
mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail. you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"... thats blackmail. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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 Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote:
4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)?
All Assignments made since 1992 will be included.
I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs for allocations made in 1995 is wrong.
It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which is not happening.
What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year (well, the draft price).
It's like an update of pricing or the terms and conditions, so you can consider to either give your allocation back and won't be charged in the future or you'll pay the price.
This has nothing to do with retroactively charging. It's just a change of the fee from now and on.
Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which is not happening.
What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year (well, the draft price).
mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail.
you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"...
Not necessarily. It's a change of the market and certainly not good practice. It's like an ISP adjusting the price upwards on a broadband package. The problem is, there's no competition to move to or well there is .. because it depends what the LIR charges the end-user or if the LIR just takes the 50 EUR and basically writes it off. The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long. Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger scheme. The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer as long as they are with you. And before you ask, We've got a few PI allocations ourselves and I couldn't care less about 50 EUR each a year. If that is, what it takes, to get people to give ressources back, then that's that. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long.
LIRS are NOT isps! the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work. there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells. and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space for others). the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they HAVE to be part of an ISP. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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 Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which is not happening.
What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year (well, the draft price).
mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail.
you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"...
Not necessarily. It's a change of the market and certainly not good practice. It's like an ISP adjusting the price upwards on a broadband package. The problem is, there's no competition to move to or well there is .. because it depends what the LIR charges the end-user or if the LIR just takes the 50 EUR and basically writes it off.
The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long.
Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger scheme.
The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer as long as they are with you.
And before you ask, We've got a few PI allocations ourselves and I couldn't care less about 50 EUR each a year. If that is, what it takes, to get people to give ressources back, then that's that.
Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long.
LIRS are NOT isps!
Not every LIR is an ISP, a lot of them are. If you assign PI to somebody else, you have a provider/enduser relationship. That makes you a service provider of some sort. Be it internet, content or hosting.
the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work.
there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells.
You have to have a contractual relationship with the enduser that has PI now. You know that, right ?
and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space for others).
Or entities, that don't want to deal with a LIR.
the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they HAVE to be part of an ISP.
There are very few LIRs, that aren't providing some commercial product. And even then 50 EUR/year is compared to the money they probably pay for connectivity: near to nothing. Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM.
And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss this and to be able to vote? -Hank
Please remove from this list m.abrile@itelsi.com Thank you -------------------------------------------------------- Matteo Abrile Itelsi Tigullio Srl Via G. Casaregis 50/12 - 16129 Genova Tel. 0109845320 Fax. 0109845321 mail: m.abrile@itelsi.com -----Messaggio originale----- Da: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] Per conto di Hank Nussbacher Inviato: venerdì 19 giugno 2009 8.43 A: Martin List-Petersen Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss@ripe.net Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM.
And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss this and to be able to vote? -Hank
Please remove n.hagoort@interconnect.nl from this list Thanks -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matteo Abrile Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:37 AM To: Hank Nussbacher; Martin List-Petersen Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: R: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Please remove from this list m.abrile@itelsi.com Thank you -------------------------------------------------------- Matteo Abrile Itelsi Tigullio Srl Via G. Casaregis 50/12 - 16129 Genova Tel. 0109845320 Fax. 0109845321 mail: m.abrile@itelsi.com -----Messaggio originale----- Da: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] Per conto di Hank Nussbacher Inviato: venerdì 19 giugno 2009 8.43 A: Martin List-Petersen Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis; Sven Olaf Kamphuis; members-discuss@ripe.net Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM.
And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss this and to be able to vote? -Hank
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM.
And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss this and to be able to vote?
Proxy voting is allowed. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
+1 It is a good idea to make voting process through the LIR portal. Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Anyhow, this whole matter was also already raised at the GM.
And who ever heard that 50 LIR members vote on behalf of 5000 (as was at the last GM)? Why can't proxy voting or Internet voting be allowed? Why does a non-profit LIR have to travel to the GM in order to discuss this and to be able to vote?
-Hank
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Max Tulyev wrote: So how do we make that happen? -Hank
+1
It is a good idea to make voting process through the LIR portal.
The first idea and the shortest way - via RIPE PDP process. The second is at the formal stakeholders (i.e. LIRs) gathering. Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Max Tulyev wrote:
So how do we make that happen? -Hank
+1
It is a good idea to make voting process through the LIR portal.
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark: its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would not object to registering such, neither does RIPE. profitability does not come into question. LIRs distribute IP space according to -need- not to -profitability- also, customers of a LIR usually have agreed to pay the -registration- fees of the LIR, in some cases they may have paid nothing at all (associations, home users, etc) in case the LIR was like "oh we can well cover this without going up a catagory in the scoring algorithm". also, PI allocations on IPv4 are usually pretty small anyway and not worth "recovery" as opposed to some old PRE-RIR blocks which are also assigned to ripe, held by some larger organisations, which are usually not even routed on the internet or severely firewalled. point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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 Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long.
LIRS are NOT isps!
the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work.
there are no "services" or "products" a LIR normally sells.
and there also is no question of "circumventing ripe membership fees" as those only apply to LIRs (that is, people willing to register IP space for others).
the fact that -most- LIRs are part of an ISP or even some ASPs that fell for ripes jedi-mind-trick and became a LIR themselves, doesnt mean they HAVE to be part of an ISP.
--
Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices
Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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 Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which is not happening.
What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year (well, the draft price).
mind you that PI registrants never agreed to any contract that allows "price changes" and that "choosing" to have their allocations removeed instead of either paying a LIR, with whom they would usually have an agreement that only covers a one time payment, or several thousand euros to ripe directly, OR GIVE UP THEIR ALLOCATIONS and therefore cause significant damage to their business :P is pure blackmail.
you cant first tell someone "sure we will register ip sppace for your company, please pay 2500 euros which covers our work and the first 2 years in which potentially our ripe-score could be affected by this registration (PI and AS numbers only count for 2 years in the score), and then go "oops, now you have to either pay a few 1000 to ripe OR a few hundred to us (most customers have as numberrs AND PI space)"...
Not necessarily. It's a change of the market and certainly not good practice. It's like an ISP adjusting the price upwards on a broadband package. The problem is, there's no competition to move to or well there is .. because it depends what the LIR charges the end-user or if the LIR just takes the 50 EUR and basically writes it off.
The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long.
Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger scheme.
The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer as long as they are with you.
And before you ask, We've got a few PI allocations ourselves and I couldn't care less about 50 EUR each a year. If that is, what it takes, to get people to give ressources back, then that's that.
Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "linkedin.com" X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark:
its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would not object to registering such, neither does RIPE.
profitability does not come into question.
LIRs distribute IP space according to -need- not to -profitability-
also, customers of a LIR usually have agreed to pay the -registration- fees of the LIR, in some cases they may have paid nothing at all
(associations, home users, etc) in case the LIR was like "oh we can well cover this without going up a catagory in the scoring algorithm".
also, PI allocations on IPv4 are usually pretty small anyway and not worth "recovery" as opposed to some old PRE-RIR blocks which are also assigned to ripe, held by some larger organisations, which are usually not even routed on the internet or severely firewalled.
point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues.
Please read http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-452.html . This is a result of work done by RIPE members, not the RIPE NCC. Every LIR is a RIPE member. The RIPE NCC is not a for profit organisation and it has to report to the RIPE membership. If the revenue from the PI charges generate so much income, that they make a huge profit, that'll mean that the LIR charges go down, it's as simple as that. Charging for PI is what has been proposed to force unused ressources to be returned, this is a draft, if you don't like it, you might want to vote against this or maybe participate in a workgroup to come up with a better proposal. At the end of the day, the membership has to approve or disapprove this. That is at least my understanding. So you might want to show up, when it gets voted for or against. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Hi, Sven.
as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark:
its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would not object to registering such, neither does RIPE.
If "natural person" want to - even pays. Any bonuses worth the money. Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money. -- Alexandr Tretyakov ILCA ISP http://www.ilca.ru Tel +7 812 490-6014 Mob +7 812 928-8014
If "natural person" want to - even pays. Any bonuses worth the money. Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money.
BECAUSE you do not pay for your ASN and PA space, you pay membership fees for running a LOCAL INTERNET REGISTRY. (which gives you the opportunity to register IP space for others), if you dont register IP space for others, you should actually use PI space (and yes, for free). I see we have another one that fell for RIPEs jedi-mind trick trying to sell everyone a LIR membership. keep in mind: customers with whom you expect to have a long-running relationship and which use your network should not be on PI space with their own AS in the first place, they should be on YOUR PA space. the sole purpose of having PI space -is- to distribute IP space in a REGULATED matter (the other option ofcourse is anarchy), without any running-contracts/payment relations with the registering party, after all, its supposed to provide independance (I know some of our colleguas like to force customers to stay their customer by just letting them grow and grow until re-numbering becomes somewhat of a problem and then rip them off, and exactly -that- is why PI space is there, and why most smart customers insist on having PI space)... RIPE implementing a new policy for NEW registrations is totally fine, no problems with that (besides the somewhat rediculous prices if they choose to do business with ripe directly but that gives the LIRs the opportunity to provide a discount) but you cannot force customers that were told they only had to pay once that they now have to pay recurring. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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, 19 Jun 2009, Alexandr Tretyakov wrote:
Hi, Sven.
as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark:
its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would not object to registering such, neither does RIPE.
If "natural person" want to - even pays. Any bonuses worth the money. Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money.
-- Alexandr Tretyakov ILCA ISP http://www.ilca.ru Tel +7 812 490-6014 Mob +7 812 928-8014
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "google" X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
It is also worth noting that we were recently "chastised" by RIPE for charging a fee to our customers for additional IP addresses The quote was something along the lines of "whilst we think the principal of charging for IP addresses to stop customers ordering more than they really need, the terms of the LIR agreement do not allow you to charge for IP addresses, and you should not do so" So can we start to charge anyone / everyone for IP addresses now? J On 19 Jun 2009, at 00:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
If "natural person" want to - even pays. Any bonuses worth the money. Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money.
BECAUSE you do not pay for your ASN and PA space, you pay membership fees for running a LOCAL INTERNET REGISTRY. (which gives you the opportunity to register IP space for others), if you dont register IP space for others, you should actually use PI space (and yes, for free).
I see we have another one that fell for RIPEs jedi-mind trick trying to sell everyone a LIR membership.
keep in mind: customers with whom you expect to have a long-running relationship and which use your network should not be on PI space with their own AS in the first place, they should be on YOUR PA space.
the sole purpose of having PI space -is- to distribute IP space in a REGULATED matter (the other option ofcourse is anarchy), without any running-contracts/payment relations with the registering party, after all, its supposed to provide independance (I know some of our colleguas like to force customers to stay their customer by just letting them grow and grow until re-numbering becomes somewhat of a problem and then rip them off, and exactly -that- is why PI space is there, and why most smart customers insist on having PI space)...
RIPE implementing a new policy for NEW registrations is totally fine, no problems with that (besides the somewhat rediculous prices if they choose to do business with ripe directly but that gives the LIRs the opportunity to provide a discount) but you cannot force customers that were told they only had to pay once that they now have to pay recurring.
--
Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices
Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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, 19 Jun 2009, Alexandr Tretyakov wrote:
Hi, Sven.
as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark:
its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would not object to registering such, neither does RIPE.
If "natural person" want to - even pays. Any bonuses worth the money. Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money.
-- Alexandr Tretyakov ILCA ISP http://www.ilca.ru Tel +7 812 490-6014 Mob +7 812 928-8014
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "google" X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
It is also worth noting that we were recently "chastised" by RIPE for charging a fee to our customers for additional IP addresses
The quote was something along the lines of "whilst we think the principal of charging for IP addresses to stop customers ordering more than they really need, the terms of the LIR agreement do not allow you to charge for IP addresses, and you should not do so"
So can we start to charge anyone / everyone for IP addresses now?
J
indeed, charging money for ip space is not allowed, which is why we only billed our one-time administration fee, no provisions for further recurring payments or continueing contracts where ever made. and indeed, ripe has in the past also actively commented on a lot of isps asking money from customers that wanted to have additional ips from their PA space (hosting, access, etc), and is now suddenly expecting us to do the same. (well they claim its per-assignment but with the shitty small PI assignments customers usually need several to get around anyway). -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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, 19 Jun 2009, Jon Morby wrote:
It is also worth noting that we were recently "chastised" by RIPE for charging a fee to our customers for additional IP addresses
The quote was something along the lines of "whilst we think the principal of charging for IP addresses to stop customers ordering more than they really need, the terms of the LIR agreement do not allow you to charge for IP addresses, and you should not do so"
So can we start to charge anyone / everyone for IP addresses now?
J
On 19 Jun 2009, at 00:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
If "natural person" want to - even pays. Any bonuses worth the money. Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money.
BECAUSE you do not pay for your ASN and PA space, you pay membership fees for running a LOCAL INTERNET REGISTRY. (which gives you the opportunity to register IP space for others), if you dont register IP space for others, you should actually use PI space (and yes, for free).
I see we have another one that fell for RIPEs jedi-mind trick trying to sell everyone a LIR membership.
keep in mind: customers with whom you expect to have a long-running relationship and which use your network should not be on PI space with their own AS in the first place, they should be on YOUR PA space.
the sole purpose of having PI space -is- to distribute IP space in a REGULATED matter (the other option ofcourse is anarchy), without any running-contracts/payment relations with the registering party, after all, its supposed to provide independance (I know some of our colleguas like to force customers to stay their customer by just letting them grow and grow until re-numbering becomes somewhat of a problem and then rip them off, and exactly -that- is why PI space is there, and why most smart customers insist on having PI space)...
RIPE implementing a new policy for NEW registrations is totally fine, no problems with that (besides the somewhat rediculous prices if they choose to do business with ripe directly but that gives the LIRs the opportunity to provide a discount) but you cannot force customers that were told they only had to pay once that they now have to pay recurring.
--
Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices
Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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, 19 Jun 2009, Alexandr Tretyakov wrote:
Hi, Sven.
as for your "not making 50 euros a year" remark:
its potentially possible for a natural person to obtain pi space and an AS number for his home network (provided he has that many equipment to cover the minimum announcable space of /24 ofcourse), we as a LIR would not object to registering such, neither does RIPE.
If "natural person" want to - even pays. Any bonuses worth the money. Sometimes a lot of money. And I do not understand why someone should receive ASN & PI free when I pay for the ASN and PA money.
-- Alexandr Tretyakov ILCA ISP http://www.ilca.ru Tel +7 812 490-6014 Mob +7 812 928-8014
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "google" X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues.
Is there any law basis to say that such block has ben assigned forever? I don't see it that way. Law is being changed every day. Any law can be changed so why not allocation policy? Is it different then, say, acts governing banks? If you fulfill current requirements for anything ATM (say to be a bank) then you can do this thing (say you can be a bank). Next year you may need to fulfill different requirements to persist. That's it. Regards Dariusz Margas
well fine, then start with the huge allocations that are PRE-RIR and no longer in use but still registered to various multinationals... if you are going to do a cleanup, do it properly :P several /14s etc there.. go ahead. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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, 19 Jun 2009, Dariusz Margas wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
point remains: there is -no- legal basis on which to bill existing PI customers or on wich to force them to engage in a new contract, besides the already fulfilled contract to "register ip space" for them, its quite close to blackmail if the "threat" includes to remove their allocations if they dont enter into a new recurring-payment contract (even if the lir would pay for it and not charge the customer, the customer still has to enter into a new contract, with which they potentially could have issues.
Is there any law basis to say that such block has ben assigned forever?
I don't see it that way. Law is being changed every day. Any law can be changed so why not allocation policy? Is it different then, say, acts governing banks? If you fulfill current requirements for anything ATM (say to be a bank) then you can do this thing (say you can be a bank). Next year you may need to fulfill different requirements to persist. That's it.
Regards Dariusz Margas
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
Salut, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 08:27:24AM +1000, Dariusz Margas wrote:
I don't see it that way. Law is being changed every day. Any law can be changed so why not allocation policy? Is it different then, say, acts governing banks? If you fulfill current requirements for anything ATM (say to be a bank) then you can do this thing (say you can be a bank). Next year you may need to fulfill different requirements to persist.
That may be true, but the validity of these requirements is actually laid out through legislation. RIPE, however, is not a governmental body or democratically legitimated (legitimation only by members doesn't really count), so what we're debating here is the policy of an organization, not a law. In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts. Kind regards, Tonnerre -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 Güterstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard@sygroup.ch
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts.
Can you point out to me, where it said unlimited ? Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts.
Can you point out to me, where it said unlimited ?
it doesnt but the PI requlations do specify that the -use- has to remain in accordance with the orignal reasons for which it was requested. which basically boils down to: ripe can only remove such allocations if they are no longer in use for their original purpose, they cannot try to fork money out of existing PI/AS users, or their LIRs, so yes, as long as the original request criteria are met, they are -forever- (before we registered our first PI block I even called and asked them if PROVIDER INDEPENDANT space would not cause recurring fees for us, and they said no. (besides the showing up in the billing score for a short time, which ofcourse is calculated into our one-time administration fee.)
Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "ripe.net"
Salut, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:03:08AM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts.
Can you point out to me, where it said unlimited ?
The answer lies in the lack of limitation. As far as I know, any type of agreement cannot be changed unilaterally unless that was clearly provided for. This has not been the case with old RIPE PI ressource agreements as far as I know. Kind regards, Tonnerre -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 Güterstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard@sygroup.ch
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
Salut,
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:03:08AM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
In that case it is difficult to change a policy which previously held unlimited validity. If there was however a clause defining that the policy may be superseeded at any time, then it can be debated that it was the responsibility of the sponsoring LIR to make corresponding contracts. Can you point out to me, where it said unlimited ?
The answer lies in the lack of limitation.
As far as I know, any type of agreement cannot be changed unilaterally unless that was clearly provided for. This has not been the case with old RIPE PI ressource agreements as far as I know.
Any agreement in any case would be until further notice. As there was no contract and thus no way of telling how long you'd have the ressources. Matter of fact is, that nobody owns the number-ressources. If it was a matter of ownership, sure, but it's not. It's a service. At any given time, you'll have the number-ressources on borrowed time and can be happy if you have them free for as long as you had them free. But there has at no time been the case of ownership. And with a service, that can change, be there a written contract or not. It just has to be announced in due time and that has been done. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Salut, On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:44:07PM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Any agreement in any case would be until further notice. As there was no contract and thus no way of telling how long you'd have the ressources. Matter of fact is, that nobody owns the number-ressources.
If it was a matter of ownership, sure, but it's not. It's a service. At any given time, you'll have the number-ressources on borrowed time and can be happy if you have them free for as long as you had them free.
But there has at no time been the case of ownership. And with a service, that can change, be there a written contract or not. It just has to be announced in due time and that has been done.
The question in times of customary trademark claims and everything is more like, would a LIR bet the existence of their company (potentially) on the likelyhood that any given judge agrees with the RIPEs vision of their services and their obligation to provide them. But hey, legal uncertainty is modern, so I see RIPE seems to be doing well. Kind regards, Tonnerre -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 Güterstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard@sygroup.ch
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
Salut,
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:44:07PM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Any agreement in any case would be until further notice. As there was no contract and thus no way of telling how long you'd have the ressources. Matter of fact is, that nobody owns the number-ressources.
If it was a matter of ownership, sure, but it's not. It's a service. At any given time, you'll have the number-ressources on borrowed time and can be happy if you have them free for as long as you had them free.
But there has at no time been the case of ownership. And with a service, that can change, be there a written contract or not. It just has to be announced in due time and that has been done.
The question in times of customary trademark claims and everything is more like, would a LIR bet the existence of their company (potentially) on the likelyhood that any given judge agrees with the RIPEs vision of their services and their obligation to provide them.
But hey, legal uncertainty is modern, so I see RIPE seems to be doing well.
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs). If you don't like it, participate in the workgroups. I'd say with a contractual relationship, there's actually certainty. Because before that, if you had PI and ASN ressources from a LIR that has gone bust, you'd never know how long you'd keep them after the other ressources are returned due to liquidation. Now there is at least a clear procedure and you can even choose to have a relationship with the RIPE NCC and not a LIR. It just has a price tag. The upside of that, if a lot of organisations do that, it'll drive our LIR fee's down. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Salut, Martin, On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:59:47 +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs).
Of course, sorry.
I'd say with a contractual relationship, there's actually certainty. Because before that, if you had PI and ASN ressources from a LIR that has gone bust, you'd never know how long you'd keep them after the other ressources are returned due to liquidation.
Now there is at least a clear procedure and you can even choose to have a relationship with the RIPE NCC and not a LIR. It just has a price tag.
That's perfectly fine with me (except that I think exceptions should be made for organizations like SwissIX). I am merely suggesting that there are going to be problems with the fact that these fees are also going to be applied to existing assignments, and that "IP addresses are not property" may not be the opinion a judge chooses to share. As I said before, the RIPE NCC is no legislative power. But I guess there really is no need to debate that, it's more like a "sit back and watch" situation. Kind regards, Tonnerre -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 Güterstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard@sygroup.ch
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
That's perfectly fine with me (except that I think exceptions should be made for organizations like SwissIX). I am merely suggesting that there are going to be problems with the fact that these fees are also going to be applied to existing assignments, and that "IP addresses are not property" may not be the opinion a judge chooses to share.
As I said before, the RIPE NCC is no legislative power.
But I guess there really is no need to debate that, it's more like a "sit back and watch" situation.
No, actually, I think you are making a perfect point, that IXP ressources maybe should be excempt. But again, this could be raised as a proposal in the address working group and then pushed through as a seperate policy or addendum to 2007-01. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs).
Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. Regards, Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658 Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su> Sent by: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net 06/20/2009 12:32 AM To members-discuss@ripe.net cc Subject Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs).
Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Please also remove my address on urgent basis Best Regards, Saeed Khalid Head of Technical & Network Services Etisalcom Bahrain W.L.L. Cell +973 36070205 ________________________________ From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdullah Al-Batati Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:29 AM To: Max Tulyev Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net; members-discuss-admin@ripe.net Subject: [SPAM] - Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 - Email found in subject Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. Regards, Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658 Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su> Sent by: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net 06/20/2009 12:32 AM To members-discuss@ripe.net cc Subject Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs).
Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO) __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4173 (20090620) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com
Please remove my address from this list: f.herman@kosmozz.com Filip Herman Network & Software Architect KOSMOZZ Internet Solution Provider From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdullah Al-Batati Sent: zaterdag 20 juni 2009 0:29 To: Max Tulyev Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net; members-discuss-admin@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. Regards, Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658 Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su> Sent by: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net 06/20/2009 12:32 AM To members-discuss@ripe.net cc Subject Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs).
Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Please remove me too From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Filip Herman Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:14 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net; members-discuss-admin@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Please remove my address from this list: f.herman@kosmozz.com Filip Herman Network & Software Architect KOSMOZZ Internet Solution Provider From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdullah Al-Batati Sent: zaterdag 20 juni 2009 0:29 To: Max Tulyev Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net; members-discuss-admin@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side. Regards, Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658 Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su> Sent by: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net 06/20/2009 12:32 AM To members-discuss@ripe.net cc Subject Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010 Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs).
Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that. LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
whomever wants to be removed should log into the RIPE LIR portal, as a user (not with the admin account) http://lirportal.ripe.net/ click general click edit Subscribed Mailing Lists NCC members discussion (plus, people that don't know how to do this should probably not be on the list in the first place, as your IT department's hostmaster(s) to fix it :P -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/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 Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Mohannad Habaq wrote:
Please remove me too
From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Filip Herman Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:14 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net; members-discuss-admin@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Please remove my address from this list: f.herman@kosmozz.com
Filip Herman Network & Software Architect KOSMOZZ Internet Solution Provider
From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdullah Al-Batati Sent: zaterdag 20 juni 2009 0:29 To: Max Tulyev Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net; members-discuss-admin@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Gentlemen, Kindly remove my name from list. it's too much e-mail I'm receiving daily with no action is required from my side.
Regards,
Abdullah Al-Batati Acting Field Manager, Integrated Technology Services Western Region Tel : 966-2-6104163 Mobile: 0503678658
Saudi Business Machines, Ltd. General Marketing & Services Representative of IBM WTC
Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su> Sent by: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net
06/20/2009 12:32 AM
To
members-discuss@ripe.net
cc
Subject
Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs).
Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that.
LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;)
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Please remove gpashollari@it-tel.com.al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Tulyev" <president@ukraine.su> To: <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs).
Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that.
LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;)
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Gerhard Pashollari wrote:
Please remove gpashollari@it-tel.com.al
----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Tulyev" <president@ukraine.su> To: <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discuss Charging Scheme 2010
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Again. Differentiate between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. RIPE is the LIR membership. The RIPE NCC handles the ressources and actions the policies, that have been worked out by the RIPE membership (the LIRs).
Wrong. RIPE is an open community, anyone can join for free just by signing on the interesting lists. You don't have to be a LIR representative for that.
LIRs are stakeholders of RIPE _NCC_ ;)
Thanks for correcting me on that one. I tend to forget that. Doesn't change the fact though, that the policies actioned by the NCC are worked out by RIPE, which is the community, not the NCC. It also remains the fact, that if more money is generated from this charging scheme and the NCC turns out to make a profit, the LIR fee's will have to go down. So at the end of the day it's only about reclaiming unused PI. The balance on the money for LIRs will stay about the same unless you abused the system. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Hi, Sven.
the "product" bought from a LIR is the registration of IP space, usually at at one-time single payment that covered the increase in the billing score for 2 years if applicable and the administrative work.
I am one - do not understand why the "one-time payment? Make a new contract, to collect 50 euro and all. Who does not want to pay - let them pay in RIPE. If a client wants to be / 24 and the ASN, but can not pay 10 euros a month - it is bad. Very bad customer. -- Alexandr Tretyakov ILCA ISP http://www.ilca.ru Tel +7 812 490-6014 Mob +7 812 928-8014
Salut, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:50:40PM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer as long as they are with you.
That doesn't work for all cases. There are for example things such as non-commercial internet exchanges - the SwissIX for example comes to mind. The SwissIX owns a PI /24 IPv4 network, a /64 IPv6 network and an aut-num for the route server. Since all fiber and switches are sponsored by association members, the connection fee is 0.- With the advent of the new charging scheme, RIPE now suddenly does want (they refuse to make an exception as far as I know) to charge SwissIX the regular fee for PI ressources - which sums up to EUR 150.- per year as far as I can tell. This is not something which can be "reclaimed" from a customer, though - it is simply money a free-of-charge non-profit internet exchange does not have. (And SwissIX is not totally negligible - after all, the 10 locations which are distributed over 2 countries are currently exchanging an aggregated 5 Gbps. With the opening of two new sites in Basel, this won't go down either.) Following your suggestion would mean to ask all non-profit internet exchanges to become profit oriented. I don't see the point in that though. Kind regards, Tonnerre PS. Hello to all those out there who do not want to receive this mail. Please unsubscribe from this mailing list using the LIR Portal - https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/index.html -- SyGroup GmbH Tonnerre Lombard Solutions Systematiques Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 Güterstrasse 86 Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4053 Basel Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard@sygroup.ch
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long.
Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger scheme.
From today onward it makes total sense to charge 50 or even 200 Euro per allocation - at least then the LIR knows the cost, the end user knows the cost.
The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer as long as they are with you.
Here you hit the nail on the head. Most ISPs will just pass the cost onward to the end user. As you said - it is chump change. And most of the 5000 LIR members don't even waste their manpower discussing this since the time spent is not worth the cost savings. But not all LIRs are commercial ISPs - some are non-profits. Back in the dark ages, before ISPs knew about multi-homing and BGP, ISOC-IL acted as a LIR and assigned ASNs to organizations needing multihoming in Israel. Dozens pre-1999. ISOC-IL knew its RIPE membership fees and charged end users a one time fee for the allocations. Only recently has the charging algorithm changed to include allocations dating back to 1992. -Hank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi! Stupid question: 50 EUR / year / allocation -> ok But in addition the billing score will grow as the PI / ASN assignments in the past years only came into scoring once. Now they will be a permanent scoring point, right? Cheers, Patrick Am 19.06.2009 08:40, schrieb Hank Nussbacher:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
The product that the customer buys of the LIR should be giving more than 50 EUR/year revenue, if not, you might not be in business for long.
Honestly this discussion is pretty much about chump change in the bigger scheme.
From today onward it makes total sense to charge 50 or even 200 Euro per allocation - at least then the LIR knows the cost, the end user knows the cost.
The ones that get hit are the ones that abused the PI scheme to not pay for PA or RIPE membership. For everyone else it's pretty much something that falls under the table. It's 4.17EUR/month per allocation. If you don't make that kindda money of your PI customers on top of your cost, your business isn't viable. And yeah .. you can just charge it on to them or eat the cost. Latter wouldn't make a difference to the customer as long as they are with you.
Here you hit the nail on the head. Most ISPs will just pass the cost onward to the end user. As you said - it is chump change. And most of the 5000 LIR members don't even waste their manpower discussing this since the time spent is not worth the cost savings.
But not all LIRs are commercial ISPs - some are non-profits. Back in the dark ages, before ISPs knew about multi-homing and BGP, ISOC-IL acted as a LIR and assigned ASNs to organizations needing multihoming in Israel. Dozens pre-1999. ISOC-IL knew its RIPE membership fees and charged end users a one time fee for the allocations. Only recently has the charging algorithm changed to include allocations dating back to 1992.
-Hank
- -- 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 v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFKOzQqCIR+kawbQF0RAiIzAJ4q1vF/wIrS1JvQuyOpVtN/5N07hQCg8/V5 2CfBvcl2f1qxzp6+GOVmAbg= =Yyg0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
It's not charging retroactively. Retroactively charging for the PI space would be sending invoices out for every year from '92 to to date, which is not happening.
What is happening that the price has changed from 0 to 50 EUR/year (well, the draft price).
It's like an update of pricing or the terms and conditions, so you can consider to either give your allocation back and won't be charged in the future or you'll pay the price.
That would be true from about 2000 and onward when there was terms and conditions. Back in 1992 or even 1996 there were no terms and conditions in this regards. From a certain point onward the T&C changed whereby you agreed to any future changes. -Hank
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
All Assignments made since 1992 will be included.
I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs for allocations made in 1995 is wrong.
Well, as someone said, this is from now onwards only. Yet this is the goal - to charge for everything, for these in use and for these kept "just in case". Money can trigger some changes in peoples' minds and switch them from "grab as much as you can" mode into new one, which can be "keep as little as you really need and try to conserve as much as possible" I reckon it is too cheap. I can not imagine any running business, in fact large scale business which needs PI and can not afford 50 EU per year! This is not 50 grant, is it? Regards Dariusz Margas
Please remove ra@siberianet.ru From the list -------------- Вы писали 19 июня 2009 г., 1:59:55:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Andrea Cima wrote:
4) " - Direct assignments will have a recurring charge per assignment and the fee will be EUR 50 per direct assignment" - Operates for all direct assignments? or Only new direct assignments (included after 3 May, 2009)?
All Assignments made since 1992 will be included.
I have stated it before and I'll state it again - changing the billing rules retroactively is wrong. Maybe even EU legally wrong. Allocations made in the 1990s should not be billed. By all means recover unannounced allocations by whatever means necessary, but charging LIRs for allocations made in 1995 is wrong.
Regards, Hank Nussbacher
__________ NOD32 4137 (20090608) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
participants (31)
-
'Sven Wiese -
Abdullah Al-Batati -
Adapt Service Desk -
Alexandr Tretyakov -
Andrea Cima -
Dariusz Margas -
Florian Weimer -
Gerhard Pashollari -
Hank Nussbacher -
Heidrich Attila -
Hostmaster -
Jerkovic Bosko -
Jon Morby -
KOSMOZZ - Filip Herman -
Martin List-Petersen -
Matteo Abrile -
Max Tulyev -
Mohannad Habaq -
Nafis Dwaalster -
Natalya Petrova -
Niels Hagoort -
Patrick Kambach -
Paul Civati -
Phil Barton -
Saeed Khalid -
sergey myasoedov -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
Tonnerre Lombard -
Синегулов Радий А./SiberiaNet/ -
Сулава Сергей