A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Hi I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on. Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions. Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense). Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should go for ipv6 or not. And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year. And if everyone pays same: 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes. Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs. But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do. So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it. Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Sorry for quoting in line and multiple snips... On Jul 14, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay).
Besides the fact that I disagree on the workload model as a principle, I think that the argument is biased in any case and I give an example: our LIR exists since 2003, until now we paid about 16500 euros of fees. I count 9 "tickets" opened on our side. What is the case among the following in your opinion ? : 1 - The average processing cost of one ticket at RIPE is about 2000 euros. 2 - We are an unfortunate case 3 - The system does NOT reflect the workload created by LIRs I vote #3 and I suspect the situation is similar for most "median" LIRs. <snip>
So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year.
And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them).
This would make a lot of sense in my opinion, even though I disagree with the confusion between a "median" LIR and a "a LIR with a number of allocated IPv4 addresses corresponding to the mean (which is about 50k)". As the distribution is Paretian you can bet that the large majority of LIRs have far less than the "average" number of IP addresses. Does exist somewhere a table reporting for each RIPE member the allocated resources (IPv4, IPv6, ASn, Allocations, Assignments, Routes, etc) ?
However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year.
This would still make sense, even though I am convinced that project a tax of 50% of the raw operating income is a bit exaggerated. Make it 50% of the EBIT (which should be close to zero in any case). Should even the numbers you expose be all correct (and as said I have some objection, but I might be wrong) instead of speaking of "small"/"media"/"large" out it in this way: Who holds less than about 20K-30K allocated IPs wouls pay less, who holds more would pay more, for who is in that range it would not change much. I think that the majority of LIRs would agree. Last word... all the above is just IMHO. You are completely right stating that when we do not show up at the meetings and we do not participate we are in fault by definition. Regards, A.
Most organisations we're members of (ITSPA, ISPA, etc) work on a fee based on company turnover. That way, if you're a larger entity you pay more, and a smaller entity you pay less. Whether this is fair or not I don't know, but it seems to work. It may promote more and more small LIRs if the fees are small, and the workload may increase …. but do we want this, or do we want a pricing mechanism which will force the smaller companies who may have become an LIR to instead buy the services from a larger company who is an LIR with internal resources to deal with the majority of issues themselves ? I always thought it odd that RIPE was promoting almost anyone becoming an LIR - yes it increases their turnover and "profits" whilst also stealing the potential business from companies like ourselves who effectively became an LIR to provide services to these smaller businesses…. At the end of the day, we either all pay the same fee regardless of size (€2000 per annum?) or we have a sliding scale based on revenues (€500 for up to €1m turnover, €1,000 for turnover up to €2.5m and so on …… or we tax everyone based on the number of resources they have, so the guys with 10 x /19's pay more than those with 1 x /21 - but then that changes the taxable status of RIPE as a whole) Which takes me back to my first point … most membership organisations simply charge a sliding scale based on turnover We all have the option to send 2 members of staff off on courses telling us how to spell DNS or how to fill in a web form / drive a web page. If we choose to use them then great, and we get some networking benefits from meeting people … and those who don't make use of the courses either don't need to / want to or can't afford to have the staff out of the office for the time (usually because they're too small to have 50% of their staff out for 2 days) just my €2 :) J -- Jon Morby FidoNet - the internet made simple! 10 - 16 Tiller Road, London, E14 8PX tel: 0845 004 3050 / fax: 0845 004 3051 On 14 Jul 2012, at 15:02, Andrea Cocito <andrea.cocito@ifom.eu<mailto:andrea.cocito@ifom.eu>> wrote: Sorry for quoting in line and multiple snips... On Jul 14, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Lu Heng wrote: Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Besides the fact that I disagree on the workload model as a principle, I think that the argument is biased in any case and I give an example: our LIR exists since 2003, until now we paid about 16500 euros of fees. I count 9 "tickets" opened on our side. What is the case among the following in your opinion ? : 1 - The average processing cost of one ticket at RIPE is about 2000 euros. 2 - We are an unfortunate case 3 - The system does NOT reflect the workload created by LIRs I vote #3 and I suspect the situation is similar for most "median" LIRs. <snip> So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). This would make a lot of sense in my opinion, even though I disagree with the confusion between a "median" LIR and a "a LIR with a number of allocated IPv4 addresses corresponding to the mean (which is about 50k)". As the distribution is Paretian you can bet that the large majority of LIRs have far less than the "average" number of IP addresses. Does exist somewhere a table reporting for each RIPE member the allocated resources (IPv4, IPv6, ASn, Allocations, Assignments, Routes, etc) ? However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year. This would still make sense, even though I am convinced that project a tax of 50% of the raw operating income is a bit exaggerated. Make it 50% of the EBIT (which should be close to zero in any case). Should even the numbers you expose be all correct (and as said I have some objection, but I might be wrong) instead of speaking of "small"/"media"/"large" out it in this way: Who holds less than about 20K-30K allocated IPs wouls pay less, who holds more would pay more, for who is in that range it would not change much. I think that the majority of LIRs would agree. Last word... all the above is just IMHO. You are completely right stating that when we do not show up at the meetings and we do not participate we are in fault by definition. Regards, A. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Lu,
20/550=0.0367 per address each year.
So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year.
Correct. But it will be better to make discounts. If someone using 2048 IP - cost for IP should be 0,5 Euro/year. For big "Customers" it can be 0.02 Eur per year. Not depending PA or PI space. In this case will be included administrative expenses of RIPE NCC for support each LIR. -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 14.07.2012 18:17 - Lu Heng написал(а): Hi I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on. Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions. Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense). Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should go for ipv6 or not. And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year. And if everyone pays same: 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes. Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs. But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do. So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it. Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu?
Hi
I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on.
Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions.
Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay).
Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same.
Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense).
Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should go for ipv6 or not.
And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party.
If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math:
Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro.
20/550=0.0367 per address each year.
So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year.
And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them).
However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year.
And if everyone pays same:
20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year
So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes.
Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs.
But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do.
So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it.
Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:00:14PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc.
Firstly, not everyone makes money from the use of resources. Non-profits, charitable organisations, and individuals with PI space exist. Secondly, it would require the NCC to *know* how much money a member makes and this information is something a non-public company would not be keen to divulge. Thirdly, I'm sure there are many large telcos who, while using large amounts of resources, are actually making a loss on paper. Will they get a free ride?
1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it?
2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote?
A member can nominate a proxy to vote on their behalf or vote electronically (that has in the past not always been possible for all votes) as laid out in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-514 I note that http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm does not have any information regarding these possibilities, maybe the NCC could remedy this? rgds, Sascha Luck
This. Besides i would just delegate the RIPE works then to "EDIS RIPE Limited" which has exactly that in revenue what it needs to pay the RIPE bills - What then? Might be not correct, but that would be fully legal and set us in the smallest possible revenue (and thus member category)... (And yes, i am one of these individuals which holds PI space, and no, i will never pay RIPE even a single cent for this - There is also no contract for this, ENDusers pay to their LIR and nothing else.) This discussion is nice to read (in particular on mobile, stops me from getting bored) but neither needed nor very productive.... -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william@edisglobal.com | william@edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 17.07.2012 um 15:41 schrieb Sascha Luck:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:00:14PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc.
Firstly, not everyone makes money from the use of resources. Non-profits, charitable organisations, and individuals with PI space exist. Secondly, it would require the NCC to *know* how much money a member makes and this information is something a non-public company would not be keen to divulge. Thirdly, I'm sure there are many large telcos who, while using large amounts of resources, are actually making a loss on paper. Will they get a free ride?
1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it?
2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote?
A member can nominate a proxy to vote on their behalf or vote electronically (that has in the past not always been possible for all votes) as laid out in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-514
I note that http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm does not have any information regarding these possibilities, maybe the NCC could remedy this?
rgds, Sascha Luck
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc.
Firstly, not everyone makes money from the use of resources. Non-profits, charitable organisations, and individuals with PI space exist.
I doubt that a no-profit organization allocates more that what a small LIR allocates for commercial purposes, but we can ask to big telco to pay for them too, not to start ups or small companies who are trying to grow. anyway, no-profit literally means "no profit" which does not mean "I do not pay for services" For charitable organisations, again I doubt they are "big LIR" but if they are, I would support to make it even free for them if their budget cannot support LIR rates and ask to bigger LIR to pay their quote But again: if those charitable organisations are spending money in other services I do not see why if they allocate or use RIPE services they should not pay as well as big LIR (if those organizations are BIG)
Secondly, it would require the NCC to *know* how much money a member makes and this information is something a non-public company would not be keen to divulge.
Never asked RIPE to do that, and never proposed something like that. Any indirect way of measuring should be taken and IPv4 count is a good way to measure it. That's why the IPv4 count should give us an idea of the "size". I am not saying that we should use a "tax" approach, but simply think that the size (huge, big, medium, etc) should be calculated accordingly to this and other parameters. One question: if a LIR has a huge IPv4 allocation does it mean is has the same gross income of a company that has just one /21? Does they use the same amount of RIPE resouces (db, access, tickets, etc) ? I am talking of a simple thing: we MUST be sure that RIPE will continue to give us, LIRs, the same great service it has given us for years. It is essential for all of us, not only small or big LIRs. Now, is that a big issue for huge companies to pay 50K (or 20K) per year to make this service going?
Thirdly, I'm sure there are many large telcos who, while using large amounts of resources, are actually making a loss on paper. Will they get a free ride?
As I said: they use RIPE services, as I do, they pay (hopefully more). If you are saying they have a loss of 1 billion per year, this is not a RIPE issue more a bad company managment issue. Just as they pay for adv on tv, I do not see why they should not pay RIPE for its services. I am simply saying that bigger means more resources which CAN be related more use of RIPE services and resouces.
1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it?
2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote?
A member can nominate a proxy to vote on their behalf or vote electronically (that has in the past not always been possible for all votes) as laid out in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-514
I note that http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm does not have any information regarding these possibilities, maybe the NCC could remedy this?
I hope that the RIPE guys will find a solution so that we can improve RIPE participation. :) -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
Folks, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 02:41:23PM +0100, Sascha Luck wrote:
Firstly, not everyone makes money from the use of resources. Non-profits, charitable organisations, and individuals with PI space exist.
True. A common solution for this problem is a minimum fee. But then again, non-profits and charitable organisations also have a budget.
Secondly, it would require the NCC to *know* how much money a member makes and this information is something a non-public company would not be keen to divulge.
Ask for tax declarations and keep the information confidential.
Thirdly, I'm sure there are many large telcos who, while using large amounts of resources, are actually making a loss on paper. Will they get a free ride?
I would take revenue/turnover instead of profit as base for calculating a fee. Cheers, j. -- j.hofmüller http://users.mur.at/thesix/
In my opinion company size and how much money they earn is not an option to use for calculating membership fees. There are plenty companies that are a LIR but who's primary business is not to be an ISP and whos income from ISP services is pretty much negligable when compared to the other revenues. For a few random examples see Premier Foods Ltd, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Jouve, Producmedia S.L.U. and us. And being a governmental body we don't make any money at all, so we shouldn't pay anything right ? Also the size of a company says nothing about the use of RIPE NCC services or IP resources. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Paolo Di Francesco Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 15:00 Aan: Lu Heng CC: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu?
Hi
I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd
like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on.
Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions.
Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay).
Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same.
Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense).
Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly
refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should
go for ipv6 or not.
And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party.
If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math:
Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro.
20/550=0.0367 per address each year.
So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year.
And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them).
However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year.
And if everyone pays same:
20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year
So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a
model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes.
Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost
per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs.
But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do.
So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least
cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other
expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it.
Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ==================================================================
Michiel. I personally don't see that as any reason not to pay a nominal administrative fee much as every other PI/PA user (or sponsoring LIR on their behalf) At the end of the day these organisations have deemed a requirement for a PI/PA address space and therefore should have to pay (or encourage their sponsor to pay) the relevant maintenance fee. Much like any other utility service, there is always an underlying supply / administrative cost even if not used at all. Just as an example, we don't use piped gas in this building at all, but we pay a standing charge for the pipework and meter. We could have it taken out and then we wouldn't. These organisations could use address space from their ISP's and then they wouldn't need / pay for the PI/PA ranges... /end Peter Knapp T: 0113 294 66 99 F: 0113 273 00 58 E: peter.knapp@ccsleeds.co.uk W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Ettema Sent: 17 July 2012 15:17 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Cc: paolo.difrancesco@level7.it Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In my opinion company size and how much money they earn is not an option to use for calculating membership fees. There are plenty companies that are a LIR but who's primary business is not to be an ISP and whos income from ISP services is pretty much negligable when compared to the other revenues. For a few random examples see Premier Foods Ltd, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Jouve, Producmedia S.L.U. and us. And being a governmental body we don't make any money at all, so we shouldn't pay anything right ? Also the size of a company says nothing about the use of RIPE NCC services or IP resources. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Paolo Di Francesco Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 15:00 Aan: Lu Heng CC: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu?
Hi
I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd
like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on.
Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions.
Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay).
Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same.
Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense).
Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly
refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should
go for ipv6 or not.
And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party.
If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math:
Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro.
20/550=0.0367 per address each year.
So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year.
And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them).
However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year.
And if everyone pays same:
20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year
So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a
model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes.
Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost
per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs.
But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do.
So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least
cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other
expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it.
Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Peter, I probably should have included the <sarcasm> tag. We do not have any problem paying a just fee to RIPE NCC. Even splitting the bill equally among all members seems reasonable, even though we rate extra small now. I was trying to demonstrate that using profit or income of a member is not an acceptable criterium for determining membership fees. Sorry for the confusion -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Peter Knapp Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 16:44 Aan: Michiel Ettema; members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model Michiel. I personally don't see that as any reason not to pay a nominal administrative fee much as every other PI/PA user (or sponsoring LIR on their behalf) At the end of the day these organisations have deemed a requirement for a PI/PA address space and therefore should have to pay (or encourage their sponsor to pay) the relevant maintenance fee. Much like any other utility service, there is always an underlying supply / administrative cost even if not used at all. Just as an example, we don't use piped gas in this building at all, but we pay a standing charge for the pipework and meter. We could have it taken out and then we wouldn't. These organisations could use address space from their ISP's and then they wouldn't need / pay for the PI/PA ranges... /end Peter Knapp T: 0113 294 66 99 F: 0113 273 00 58 E: peter.knapp@ccsleeds.co.uk W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Ettema Sent: 17 July 2012 15:17 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Cc: paolo.difrancesco@level7.it Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In my opinion company size and how much money they earn is not an option to use for calculating membership fees. There are plenty companies that are a LIR but who's primary business is not to be an ISP and whos income from ISP services is pretty much negligable when compared to the other revenues. For a few random examples see Premier Foods Ltd, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Jouve, Producmedia S.L.U. and us. And being a governmental body we don't make any money at all, so we shouldn't pay anything right ? Also the size of a company says nothing about the use of RIPE NCC services or IP resources. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Paolo Di Francesco Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 15:00 Aan: Lu Heng CC: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu?
Hi
I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd
like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on.
Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions.
Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay).
Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same.
Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense).
Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly
refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should
go for ipv6 or not.
And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party.
If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math:
Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro.
20/550=0.0367 per address each year.
So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year.
And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them).
However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year.
And if everyone pays same:
20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year
So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a
model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes.
Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost
per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs.
But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do.
So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least
cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other
expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it.
Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ==================================================================
Hi Michiel
In my opinion company size and how much money they earn is not an option to use for calculating membership fees.
that why I am still proposing for the next 5 years to use IPv4 address space: it's a stable mean to measure TLC size of a company. I guess if your company has not a primary telco business you are not allocating millions of addresses if your primary service is not TLC, right? By the way, if you are using millions of Ipv4 and you are selling other products, I do not see any scandal to pay what (indirectly) you are using, i.e RIPE services. My company does not resell paper, but we pay for paper to be printed for our documents or the water we use. The more we use the more we pay. And I guess also no profit or not telco companies pay for paper, for water, for any resource they are using. For RIPE the model is a little different: the bigger should pay more because i) they probably consume more resouces than small LIR ii) they have the money to keep RIPE safe and running iii) asking to a big LIR to pay more money means more possiblity to have small LIRs, i.e. better competition, higher chances for good start-ups To me the lower is the barieer the more benefit we call get. I am also open to a "new comer" fee specifically for startups or new companies which will be lower for the first 2 years, and regular after the first 2 years. The only point using IPv4 address allocation is that it's a stable and easy indicator to see who is in the telco market and use resouces from RIPE (time, phone calls, computers, etc) and most probably is running a business (primary or not) bound to those resouces. Just my 2 cents
There are plenty companies that are a LIR but who's primary business is not to be an ISP and whos income from ISP services is pretty much negligable when compared to the other revenues. For a few random examples see Premier Foods Ltd, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Jouve, Producmedia S.L.U. and us. And being a governmental body we don't make any money at all, so we shouldn't pay anything right ? Also the size of a company says nothing about the use of RIPE NCC services or IP resources.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Paolo Di Francesco Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 15:00 Aan: Lu Heng CC: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made
From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*).
At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE.
Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc.
Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness).
Now regarding the vote I have some questions:
1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it?
2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote?
Thank you
(*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4"
and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu?
Hi
I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd
like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on.
Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions.
Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay).
Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same.
Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense).
Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly
refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should
go for ipv6 or not.
And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party.
If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math:
Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro.
20/550=0.0367 per address each year.
So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year.
And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them).
However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year.
And if everyone pays same:
20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year
So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a
model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes.
Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost
per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs.
But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do.
So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least
cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other
expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it.
Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
participants (10)
-
Andrea Cocito -
Jogi Hofmüller -
Jon Morby -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
Lu Heng -
Michiel Ettema -
Paolo Di Francesco -
Peter Knapp -
Sascha Luck -
William Weber