Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Hello, Jonas Thank you for the numbers ! In my previous mail told, that these are examples only and pointed exact to this so now it is clear if the charging scheme is on net basis: 26000000 (targeting budget) / 3108576 = 8.37 EUROs for /24 per year ! Even if we put targeting budget x 2 it is very resonable fee for one /24 net. Also permanent LIR to LIR resources transfers must be disabled. Then what we will have: (again example numbers) registration fee: 2000 EURO Anual membership fee: 350 EURO (receive one /24 for free) For every next /24 dedicated + 10 EURO All LIR to LIR permanent transfers - disabled (If you need resources ask RIPE, if you dont need return to RIPE) Off course bigger operators that need large resources will pay more than now, but it is absolutely normal, they have larger bussiness with a lot more revenue, It is not fair to put on same basis small telecom with 2k-3k clients and operator with 20m - 30m clients. Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Jonas Frey wrote:
Hello,
sorry but that type of billing is totally nonsense. You obvisously never calculated this with real data. Let me do it for you:
According to ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/delegated-ripencc-extended-latest RIPE currently assigned 817101048 IP addresses for real-use (excluding reserved and free etc.). That equals to roughly 3191800 /24's. There are currently 20806 LIR's ( https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs), if each one is getting a /22 free, that means we have to deduct 83224 /24's from above figure. That makes it 3108576 /24's which should be billed (according to you). 3108576*350 = 1.088.001.600,00 Euros. Yes, thats 1 billion euros. RIPE's budget for 2018 was (projected) to be 26 million euros: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-693
As you can see this is utterly nonsense. As you might know, any surplus the RIPE NCC generates (at the end of the fiscal year) will be re- distributed to the members as RIPE is a association and not a company in regular terms.
Or are you trying to actually get paid from RIPE for using little count of IPv4 addresses?
Anything that is money related will *not* help to get IPv4 back or solve this with the current form of membership and RIPE. There are plenty of other ways (some of which have been proposed here) that are a much better idea (migrating to IPv6 being the ultimate one).
-J
Am Mittwoch, den 16.01.2019, 17:22 +0200 schrieb ivaylo:
Hello,
I 100% agree with you !
As many resources one LIR consumes as bigger membership fee should be.
Even to better optimize resources usage, the fee can be calculated on /24 basis.
example: /17 = 128 x /24 fee = (128-4)*350 = 43 400 euro/year fee
P.S. in your example should be: (32-1)*1400 = 39 200 euro.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, TrustHost wrote:
Hi. I think it would be great if the payment depends on the quantity the resources for one account. It would help to return unused IPv4 in free pool for new business. The companies, who really use big networks won't notice such changes. But who received the resources before 2012 and has unused /19 and maybe more will think if they really need such big blocks. For example we can implement the next charging scheme. If one account has more than /20 (not equivalent 4x/22 or the blocks were allocated before 2012) the next /22 ownership will cost some price (e.g. 1400 euro). For example: There is /17 IPv4 block for one LIR account. /17 = 32x/22. The total price for this account is (32-4)*1400 = 39 200 euro. I think the members must have equal rights, regardless of the year of the membership started. ------------------ Kind regards, Boris Loginov TrustHost LLC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/r ipe%40probe-networks.de
this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the same plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if you don't use it... Thomas Il 17/01/19 14:30, ivaylo ha scritto:
Hello, Jonas
Thank you for the numbers ! In my previous mail told, that these are examples only and pointed exact to this so now it is clear if the charging scheme is on net basis:
26000000 (targeting budget) / 3108576 = 8.37 EUROs for /24 per year !
Even if we put targeting budget x 2 it is very resonable fee for one /24 net.
Also permanent LIR to LIR resources transfers must be disabled. Then what we will have: (again example numbers)
registration fee: 2000 EURO Anual membership fee: 350 EURO (receive one /24 for free) For every next /24 dedicated + 10 EURO
All LIR to LIR permanent transfers - disabled (If you need resources ask RIPE, if you dont need return to RIPE)
Off course bigger operators that need large resources will pay more than now, but it is absolutely normal, they have larger bussiness with a lot more revenue, It is not fair to put on same basis small telecom with 2k-3k clients and operator with 20m - 30m clients.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Jonas Frey wrote:
Hello,
sorry but that type of billing is totally nonsense. You obvisously never calculated this with real data. Let me do it for you:
According to ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/delegated-ripencc-extended-latest RIPE currently assigned 817101048 IP addresses for real-use (excluding reserved and free etc.). That equals to roughly 3191800 /24's. There are currently 20806 LIR's ( https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs), if each one is getting a /22 free, that means we have to deduct 83224 /24's from above figure. That makes it 3108576 /24's which should be billed (according to you). 3108576*350 = 1.088.001.600,00 Euros. Yes, thats 1 billion euros. RIPE's budget for 2018 was (projected) to be 26 million euros: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-693
As you can see this is utterly nonsense. As you might know, any surplus the RIPE NCC generates (at the end of the fiscal year) will be re- distributed to the members as RIPE is a association and not a company in regular terms.
Or are you trying to actually get paid from RIPE for using little count of IPv4 addresses?
Anything that is money related will *not* help to get IPv4 back or solve this with the current form of membership and RIPE. There are plenty of other ways (some of which have been proposed here) that are a much better idea (migrating to IPv6 being the ultimate one).
-J
Am Mittwoch, den 16.01.2019, 17:22 +0200 schrieb ivaylo:
Hello,
I 100% agree with you !
As many resources one LIR consumes as bigger membership fee should be.
Even to better optimize resources usage, the fee can be calculated on /24 basis.
example: /17 = 128 x /24 fee = (128-4)*350 = 43 400 euro/year fee
P.S. in your example should be: (32-1)*1400 = 39 200 euro.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, TrustHost wrote:
Hi.
I think it would be great if the payment depends on the quantity the resources for one account. It would help to return unused IPv4 in free pool for new business. The companies, who really use big networks won't notice such changes. But who received the resources before 2012 and has unused /19 and maybe more will think if they really need such big blocks.
For example we can implement the next charging scheme. If one account has more than /20 (not equivalent 4x/22 or the blocks were allocated before 2012) the next /22 ownership will cost some price (e.g. 1400 euro).
For example: There is /17 IPv4 block for one LIR account. /17 = 32x/22. The total price for this account is (32-4)*1400 = 39 200 euro.
I think the members must have equal rights, regardless of the year of the membership started.
------------------ Kind regards, Boris Loginov
TrustHost LLC
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/r ipe%40probe-networks.de
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/thomas%40niceblue.it
-- -- Thomas Gallo @ Nice Blue s.r.l. Centro Direzionale Interporto Padova - Torre B Galleria Spagna, 35 - 35127 PADOVA (PD) Fixed phone: +39 (0)49 85 94 766 Fax line: +39 (0)49 82 51 032
Hi, On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl wrote:
this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the same plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if you don't use it...
The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos with tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* all IPv4 there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hello, Gert Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs. BUT.... To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same time. This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and other have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to become 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are going on that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy money from us fast. Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see other way than to be calculate on consumed resources. Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the past. Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories with complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year and something like this. Now I am talking about such scheme: LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO Also changing in rules: LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If you need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused resources return to RIPE NCC. Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl wrote:
this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the same plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if you don't use it...
The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos with tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* all IPv4 there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hello Ivaylo, You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this. Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing? Best Regards Azer ----- Исходное сообщение -----
Hello, Gert
Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
BUT....
To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same time. This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and other have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to become 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are going on that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy money from us fast.
Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see other way than to be calculate on consumed resources.
Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the past. Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories with complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year and something like this.
Now I am talking about such scheme:
LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO
LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO
LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO
LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO
Also changing in rules: LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If you need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused resources return to RIPE NCC.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl wrote:
this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the same plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if you don't use it...
The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos with tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* all IPv4 there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com
Hi. RIPE can say that each /22 must be registered in additional account. Don't you know our dear RIPE, do you?))) пт, 18 янв. 2019 г., 14:40 Azer Karyagdy azer@karyagdy.com:
Hello Ivaylo,
You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this. Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing?
Best Regards Azer
----- Исходное сообщение -----
Hello, Gert
Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
BUT....
To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same time. This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and other have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to become 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are going on that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy money from us fast.
Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see other way than to be calculate on consumed resources.
Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the past. Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories with complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year and something like this.
Now I am talking about such scheme:
LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO
LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO
LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO
LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO
Also changing in rules: LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If you need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused resources return to RIPE NCC.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl wrote:
this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the same plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if you don't use it...
The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos with tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* all IPv4 there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/aleksbulgakov%40gmail...
Aleksey, if i'm right, the rule is, every member can ask for his last /22 allocation. So If you need more /22, than you have two options: 1) buy from the market 2) register a new LIR, ask for the /22 (and maybe merge your accounts later) On 2019. 01. 18. 13:15, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
Hi.
RIPE can say that each /22 must be registered in additional account. Don't you know our dear RIPE, do you?)))
пт, 18 янв. 2019 г., 14:40 Azer Karyagdy azer@karyagdy.com <mailto:azer@karyagdy.com>:
Hello Ivaylo,
You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this. Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing?
Best Regards Azer
----- Исходное сообщение ----- > > Hello, Gert > > Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we > will > have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs. > > BUT.... > > To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same > time. > This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and > other > have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to > become > 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are > going on > that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy > money from us fast. > > Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see > other > way than to be calculate on consumed resources. > > > Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the > past. > Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories > with > complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year > and > something like this. > > Now I am talking about such scheme: > > LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: > 350 EURO > > LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: > 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO > > LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: > 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO > > LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: > 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO > > Also changing in rules: > LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If > you > need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused > resources > return to RIPE NCC. > > > Ivaylo Josifov > Varteh LTD > Varna Bulgaria > > > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue > > srl wrote: > >> this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the > >> same > >> plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if > >> you > >> don't use it... > > > > The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos > > with > > tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* > > all IPv4 > > there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago... > > > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > -- > > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, > > Michael Emmer > > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. > > Grundner-Culemann > > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com >
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/aleksbulgakov%40gmail...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/csvarasdy%40ms.hu
-- Üdvözlettel, Best Regards, ]=============================.signature===================[ Ifj. Varasdy Imre Microsystem-Kecskemet Kft. Wire:36 76 900 000 Wireless Internet Service Division
We are talking about the new rule, but not current. пт, 18 янв. 2019 г., 15:24 Varasdy Imre Csaba csvarasdy@ms.hu:
Aleksey, if i'm right, the rule is, every member can ask for his last /22 allocation. So If you need more /22, than you have two options: 1) buy from the market 2) register a new LIR, ask for the /22 (and maybe merge your accounts later) On 2019. 01. 18. 13:15, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
Hi.
RIPE can say that each /22 must be registered in additional account. Don't you know our dear RIPE, do you?)))
пт, 18 янв. 2019 г., 14:40 Azer Karyagdy azer@karyagdy.com:
Hello Ivaylo,
You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this. Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing?
Best Regards Azer
----- Исходное сообщение -----
Hello, Gert
Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
BUT....
To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same time. This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and other have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to become 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are going on that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy money from us fast.
Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see other way than to be calculate on consumed resources.
Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the past. Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories with complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year and something like this.
Now I am talking about such scheme:
LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO
LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO
LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO
LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO
Also changing in rules: LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If you need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused resources return to RIPE NCC.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl wrote:
this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the same plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if you don't use it...
The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos with tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* all IPv4 there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/aleksbulgakov%40gmail...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing listmembers-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/csvarasdy%40ms.hu
-- Üdvözlettel, Best Regards, ]=============================.signature===================[ Ifj. Varasdy Imre Microsystem-Kecskemet Kft. Wire:36 76 900 000 Wireless Internet Service Division
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/aleksbulgakov%40gmail...
Hello, Azer There is no sales, most likely it is rent. The non profit can be resolved very easy: If for previous year the RIPE NCC budget is positive, what is over income will be spread between LIRs as discount for the next year. If the collected funds from members is cant cover the expenses, the fees per net will be lifted for next year with the amount of negative balance. For example: Lets say In 2019 the total expenses are 30 000 000 euro , and from membership fees was collected 60 000 000 60m - 30m = +30m euro overcome (10 EURO) - (30m euro) / (sum /24 nets for RIPE region) = (fee for one extra /24 net for 2020) The oposite scenario can be calculate with the same formula. For those LIRs who have only one /24 and pay minimal fee of 350 EURO no discount for next year. There must be guarantee minimum budget for normal RIPE NCC work. Even I personaly would like RIPE NCC to have bigger budget, to hire more staff, and they to care resources that will be returned to be cleared from blacklists, bans, wrong annonsing and e.t.c. before they to be redelegated to other LIRs. Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Azer Karyagdy wrote:
Hello Ivaylo,
You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this. Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing?
Best Regards Azer
----- ???????? ????????? -----
Hello, Gert
Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
BUT....
To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same time. This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and other have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to become 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are going on that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy money from us fast.
Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see other way than to be calculate on consumed resources.
Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the past. Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories with complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year and something like this.
Now I am talking about such scheme:
LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO
LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO
LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO
LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO
Also changing in rules: LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If you need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused resources return to RIPE NCC.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl wrote:
this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the same plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if you don't use it...
The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos with tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* all IPv4 there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way to go about it. I think it would be better to more regularly scan allocated resources and re-claim those which are not actively in use. I don't think that it should discriminate on anything smaller than /22, but LIRs holding multiple /22 or larger ranges should definitely prove that a reasonable number of these are in use or risk losing them. I'd also hope that everyone taking the time to participate in this discussion has already rolled out IPv6 alongside their IPv4. If everyone is waiting for others to deploy then we're going to get nowhere. If everyone just thought let's go ahead and get our network ready, the world would probably have been done a long time ago. All the best, Iain Iain Kay Consider IT Limited Superior IT Support On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 13:06, ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> wrote:
Hello, Azer
There is no sales, most likely it is rent. The non profit can be resolved very easy:
If for previous year the RIPE NCC budget is positive, what is over income will be spread between LIRs as discount for the next year. If the collected funds from members is cant cover the expenses, the fees per net will be lifted for next year with the amount of negative balance.
For example: Lets say In 2019 the total expenses are 30 000 000 euro , and from membership fees was collected 60 000 000
60m - 30m = +30m euro overcome
(10 EURO) - (30m euro) / (sum /24 nets for RIPE region) = (fee for one extra /24 net for 2020)
The oposite scenario can be calculate with the same formula.
For those LIRs who have only one /24 and pay minimal fee of 350 EURO no discount for next year. There must be guarantee minimum budget for normal RIPE NCC work.
Even I personaly would like RIPE NCC to have bigger budget, to hire more staff, and they to care resources that will be returned to be cleared from blacklists, bans, wrong annonsing and e.t.c. before they to be redelegated to other LIRs.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Azer Karyagdy wrote:
Hello Ivaylo,
You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this. Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing?
Best Regards Azer
----- ???????? ????????? -----
Hello, Gert
Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
BUT....
To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same time. This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and other have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to become 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are going on that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy money from us fast.
Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see other way than to be calculate on consumed resources.
Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the past. Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories with complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year and something like this.
Now I am talking about such scheme:
LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO
LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO
LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO
LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO
Also changing in rules: LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If you need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused resources return to RIPE NCC.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl wrote:
this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the same plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if you don't use it...
The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos with tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* all IPv4 there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/iain.kay%40considerit...
Hi, Can you please explain why you think it is not the right way to go? I know everyone likes to pay less, and majority of NCC members are the one with just one /22. I wish one day NCC management reach to this point to let the members have multiple options to choose from using their votes. (fixed and variable yearly charge based on resources and any other possible option) Regards, Arash <iain.kay@considerit.co.uk wrote:
Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way to go about it.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Azer Karyagdy wrote:
Hello Ivaylo,
You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this. Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing?
Best Regards Azer
----- ???????? ????????? -----
Hello, Gert
Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
BUT....
To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same time. This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and other have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to become 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are going on that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy money from us fast.
Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see other way than to be calculate on consumed resources.
Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the past. Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories with complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year and something like this.
Now I am talking about such scheme:
LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO
LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO
LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO
LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO
Also changing in rules: LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If you need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused resources return to RIPE NCC.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl wrote:
this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the same plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if you don't use it...
The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos with tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* all IPv4 there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/iain.kay%40considerit...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/arash.naderpour%40gma...
Hi, On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 12:32:19AM +1100, Arash Naderpour wrote:
I know everyone likes to pay less, and majority of NCC members are the one with just one /22.
Because if you reduce the fee for a "I only have one /22" LIR to close to zero, next week someone will just open 500 new LIRs and grab 500 x /22, and the rest of the IPv4 space is gone. There is a reason why the /22s are not "free for all" anymore - and this is "so the next company that needs addresses has a chance to get *some*". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Now i see where you are coming from, that totally make sence. There are others in this list that may also trying to save some IPv4 for new commers, but it is irrelevant to what we are discussing here. (NCC has some mechanism in place now to stop someone from opening 500LIRs next week, regardless of the cost.) So if one day there is no more IPv4 in NCC free pool, do you think it would be good time to go towards a different model? Regards, Arash On Sat., 19 Jan. 2019, 00:55 Gert Doering <gert@space.net wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 12:32:19AM +1100, Arash Naderpour wrote:
I know everyone likes to pay less, and majority of NCC members are the one with just one /22.
Because if you reduce the fee for a "I only have one /22" LIR to close to zero, next week someone will just open 500 new LIRs and grab 500 x /22, and the rest of the IPv4 space is gone.
There is a reason why the /22s are not "free for all" anymore - and this is "so the next company that needs addresses has a chance to get *some*".
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE81318527
Hi, On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 02:30:33AM +1100, Arash Naderpour wrote:
So if one day there is no more IPv4 in NCC free pool, do you think it would be good time to go towards a different model?
At that point, we'll need to revisit the fee structure in any case. As soon as there is no more "free /22" to be had, the number of *new* LIRs will go down significantly, so the budget coming from the signup fees is gone. We'll need to look long and hard at what the requirements are, which LIRs (and which other aspects) are contributing how much to the costs and then come up with something reasonable to cover the costs. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, It looks like this will happen in around 18 months, as you probably know. Imagine what this list will look like then. Excellent entertainment, I'm sure. To everybody else: The solution to the IPv4 exhaustion problem cannot include anything based on: * Other LIRs IPv4 allocations * Money It is a dead end and waste of time. I understand recent startups lack of addresses is a problem for them but this simply can't be fixed in the ways proposed here. Anyone having trouble paying the agreed upon yearly fee can just contact RIPE's billing department and probably make an arrangement. /Peter Den 2019-01-18 kl. 17:03, skrev Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 02:30:33AM +1100, Arash Naderpour wrote:
So if one day there is no more IPv4 in NCC free pool, do you think it would be good time to go towards a different model? At that point, we'll need to revisit the fee structure in any case.
As soon as there is no more "free /22" to be had, the number of *new* LIRs will go down significantly, so the budget coming from the signup fees is gone. We'll need to look long and hard at what the requirements are, which LIRs (and which other aspects) are contributing how much to the costs and then come up with something reasonable to cover the costs.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/peter%40fiberdirekt.s...
Hi Arash, Primarily, as others have noted, RIPE is a membership body and we only pay for membership. If there's a problem with address utilisation at an LIR then this should be a policy issue and not financial. I don't think that it is possible to meet everyones IPv4 needs these days and there will always be people unhappy about whatever policy is decided. Unfortunately it's a very finite resource with all too much demand. Also, with exception to people registering multiple LIRs (which results in extra fees for RIPE as it is), people should have to be purchasing IPv4 addresses with exception to the one /22 they're allocated from the last remaining /8. My thoughts are that the only people who would be hit hard by this are the old LIRs with lots of IP space. There's no reason to punish these LIRs financially but instead we could simply ensure that their utilisation is sufficient and, if not, force them to be splitting their larger allocations into smaller ones and re-claim some parts of this for the pool. I see a follow up reply stating that savvy network guys could just spin up a bunch of VMs in next to no time to satisfy the RIPE check, that's why I'm suggesting very regular scanning that not only checks IPs ping but also checks that they host a service which would justify the requirement for the IPv4 IP Address. RIPE could demand that companies allow them through firewalls for these checks, or risk losing their allocations entirely, and if networks are not publicly routable then there's no justified reason to have that on publicly addressable IPv4 space. We have both RFC 1918 and RFC 6598 for that. For the record, we only hold one /22 and so my points are not trying to protect our own financial interests. All the best, Iain Iain Kay Consider IT Limited Superior IT Support On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 13:32, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Can you please explain why you think it is not the right way to go?
I know everyone likes to pay less, and majority of NCC members are the one with just one /22.
I wish one day NCC management reach to this point to let the members have multiple options to choose from using their votes. (fixed and variable yearly charge based on resources and any other possible option)
Regards,
Arash
<iain.kay@considerit.co.uk wrote:
Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way to go about it.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Azer Karyagdy wrote:
Hello Ivaylo,
You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this. Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing?
Best Regards Azer
----- ???????? ????????? -----
Hello, Gert
Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
BUT....
To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same time. This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and other have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to become 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are going on that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy money from us fast.
Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see other way than to be calculate on consumed resources.
Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the past. Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories with complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year and something like this.
Now I am talking about such scheme:
LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO
LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO
LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO
LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO
Also changing in rules: LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If you need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused resources return to RIPE NCC.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl wrote: > this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the > same > plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if > you > don't use it...
The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos with tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* all IPv4 there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/iain.kay%40considerit...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/arash.naderpour%40gma...
Hi Iain, NCC is membership body and you pay for your membership, but your membership free can be vary than other members. (that was what NCC was before and it can be the same again, if members think that's the way to go) I'm not telling that we should do this or not, I'm just telling that the members should be able to choose the path. no argument on your comments on address utilization. Regards, Arash P.S multi-LIR is something that NCC members voted for, and as you correctly said NCC is a membership body On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 2:09 AM Iain Kay <iain.kay@considerit.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Arash,
Primarily, as others have noted, RIPE is a membership body and we only pay for membership.
If there's a problem with address utilisation at an LIR then this should be a policy issue and not financial.
I don't think that it is possible to meet everyones IPv4 needs these days and there will always be people unhappy about whatever policy is decided.
Unfortunately it's a very finite resource with all too much demand.
Also, with exception to people registering multiple LIRs (which results in extra fees for RIPE as it is), people should have to be purchasing IPv4 addresses with exception to the one /22 they're allocated from the last remaining /8.
My thoughts are that the only people who would be hit hard by this are the old LIRs with lots of IP space.
There's no reason to punish these LIRs financially but instead we could simply ensure that their utilisation is sufficient and, if not, force them to be splitting their larger allocations into smaller ones and re-claim some parts of this for the pool.
I see a follow up reply stating that savvy network guys could just spin up a bunch of VMs in next to no time to satisfy the RIPE check, that's why I'm suggesting very regular scanning that not only checks IPs ping but also checks that they host a service which would justify the requirement for the IPv4 IP Address.
RIPE could demand that companies allow them through firewalls for these checks, or risk losing their allocations entirely, and if networks are not publicly routable then there's no justified reason to have that on publicly addressable IPv4 space.
We have both RFC 1918 and RFC 6598 for that.
For the record, we only hold one /22 and so my points are not trying to protect our own financial interests.
All the best,
Iain
Iain Kay Consider IT Limited Superior IT Support
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 13:32, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Can you please explain why you think it is not the right way to go?
I know everyone likes to pay less, and majority of NCC members are the one with just one /22.
I wish one day NCC management reach to this point to let the members have multiple options to choose from using their votes. (fixed and variable yearly charge based on resources and any other possible option)
Regards,
Arash
<iain.kay@considerit.co.uk wrote:
Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way to go about it.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Azer Karyagdy wrote:
Hello Ivaylo,
You miss important point from RIPE. RIPE do not sell anything. RIPE is non profit organisation based on membership. Each member charged only for membership and nothing more. Therefore membership fee have not any relation with number of resources hold by each member. Therefore, before talking about charge schemes we need change this base terms. I am agreed (as i believe and many other LIR's) that current situation seems to be unfair and it is not stimulate big actor to free up unused ipv4 ip's. It is usual practice in the world that who taken more resources pay for more. IPV4 is resources and they has own cost on free market. We cannot ignore this. Perhaps we need some explanation from RIPE to get more details why RIPE cannot use this way? May be some legal issue existing?
Best Regards Azer
----- ???????? ????????? -----
Hello, Gert
Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
BUT....
To can migration happen we all (LIRs) must be pushed in almost same time. This will not happen if one LIR strugling with resources need, and other have bunch of unused such. Even the fee per year for single IPV4 to become 1000 EURO it will put presure on some LIRs and not to all. We are going on that way now. And it only opens the door for some people to make easy money from us fast.
Also the charging scheme must be FAIR for all members. I cant see other way than to be calculate on consumed resources.
Such charging scheme that we are talking about was never been in the past. Before 2014, I think, The charging scheme was based on categories with complicated calculation of assignments from previous and current year and something like this.
Now I am talking about such scheme:
LIR-1 have 1 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO
LIR-2 have 4 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (4-1) * 10 EURO = 380 EURO
LIR-3 have 64 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (64-1) * 10 EURO = 990 EURO
LIR-4 have 1024 x /24 annual membership fee: 350 EURO + (1024-1) * 10 EURO = 10580 EURO
Also changing in rules: LIR cant sell give on lease or transfer to other LIR resources. If you need resources ask RIPE NCC, to lower your fee and have unused resources return to RIPE NCC.
Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:33:34PM +0100, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue > srl wrote: >> this sound a very nice approach that could clearly put all on the >> same >> plane: you can spend as you need ipv4 or you can return them if >> you >> don't use it... > > The maths do not permit "spend as you need IPv4". The big telcos > with > tens of millions of users and the cloud providers provably *need* > all IPv4 > there is. We've been at this point before, like, 15 years ago... > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, > Michael Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. > Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/azer%40karyagdy.com
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/iain.kay%40considerit...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/arash.naderpour%40gma...
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/arash.naderpour%40gma...
Hi,
Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way to go about it.
But I do. I am a relatively new LIR (only 3 years membership) and have one of the last /22. Even in a membership and non-profit schema it is possible to design usage based billing procedure (some other same type organisations does this as well). And yes, definitively there is a different value you get based on the amount of ip allocations you have assigned to your LIR because you make in the end either money directly out of it (for example for server hosting companys) or indirectly. And the one who have more resources can sell more service and utilize them other more. And in the market there is a value/cost arround each /24 currently very high. We should setup a policy that dissallow selling ip space on the normal market. Only RIPE should be the one managing this and giving resources to members and also getting them back from them. A usage based member ship fee would be fair for every members and solve a lot of issues we currently have. And as the member fee will be discussed and approved every year there is already for next year the chance to change it this way.
I think it would be better to more regularly scan allocated resources and re-claim those which are not actively in use.
Theoretically this sounds a good idea. I have personally not used my full /22 yet, but at least one address in any of them. But if an allocated resource is used or not can not always be found out externally. THere can be regstriected acess with no direct routing. Usage of ip's only internally and many more. I don't think there should be any control for already assigned resources (this is different when requesting new resources) as a different charging scheme would automatically bring LIR's to a better management of the allocations and they will give back resources by themself. If a company really require the resources for future expansion there should be no need for them to give it back (but for sure they will have to pay the member fee for it)
I'd also hope that everyone taking the time to participate in this discussion has already rolled out IPv6 alongside their IPv4.
I personally have, but this depends on the requirements of LIRs and their customer. If they only host applications that right now doesnt support IPv6 then there is no really need to deploy it already now. But in general I agree that everything should be deployed in dual stack as soon as possible till a switch-over can be made or even better if for isolated controlled use v6 only can be utilized.
If everyone is waiting for others to deploy then we're going to get nowhere.
Agree. Michael
Hi, I am sure the same discussion we had in the ARIN mailing list some years ago. And the result of that discussion was, RIRs are not the judges and can not decide that no one can sell their IPs on the open market. The transfer policy is clear enough I think. However, this open market for IPv4 will last only some years and then we all have to use IPv6 and everything is normal again. January 18, 2019 6:00 AM, info@cowmedia.de wrote:
Hi,
Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way to go about it.
But I do. I am a relatively new LIR (only 3 years membership) and have one of the last /22. Even in a membership and non-profit schema it is possible to design usage based billing procedure (some other same type organisations does this as well). And yes, definitively there is a different value you get based on the amount of ip allocations you have assigned to your LIR because you make in the end either money directly out of it (for example for server hosting companys) or indirectly. And the one who have more resources can sell more service and utilize them other more. And in the market there is a value/cost arround each /24 currently very high. We should setup a policy that dissallow selling ip space on the normal market. Only RIPE should be the one managing this and giving resources to members and also getting them back from them. A usage based member ship fee would be fair for every members and solve a lot of issues we currently have. And as the member fee will be discussed and approved every year there is already for next year the chance to change it this way.
I think it would be better to more regularly scan allocated resources and re-claim those which are not actively in use.
Theoretically this sounds a good idea. I have personally not used my full /22 yet, but at least one address in any of them. But if an allocated resource is used or not can not always be found out externally. THere can be regstriected acess with no direct routing. Usage of ip's only internally and many more. I don't think there should be any control for already assigned resources (this is different when requesting new resources) as a different charging scheme would automatically bring LIR's to a better management of the allocations and they will give back resources by themself. If a company really require the resources for future expansion there should be no need for them to give it back (but for sure they will have to pay the member fee for it)
I'd also hope that everyone taking the time to participate in this discussion has already rolled out IPv6 alongside their IPv4.
I personally have, but this depends on the requirements of LIRs and their customer. If they only host applications that right now doesnt support IPv6 then there is no really need to deploy it already now. But in general I agree that everything should be deployed in dual stack as soon as possible till a switch-over can be made or even better if for isolated controlled use v6 only can be utilized.
If everyone is waiting for others to deploy then we're going to get nowhere.
Agree.
Michael
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mohammad%40hugeserver...
-- Mohammad Oslani HugeServer Networks, LLC | Premium Dedicated Servers and Colocation Mohammad@HugeServer.com | O : 888-842-8570 x1200 | F : 213-402-6061
hello, Mohammad First a LIR CAN NOT _SELL_ nor MUST TRY TO _SELL_ any resources that it holds. These resources are not LIR properties. The main bussines of LIR _MUST_ be in IT sector not in trading sector right ? If somebody want to do trading with resources that not belongs to him let go to Wall street right ? So from every point where you look at open market is one big crap. Also how can we resolve the problem with FAIR charging scheme. Now we have somebody who pay rent for skyscraper and other who pay rent for tent, but both pays same amount of money. Is it fair ? For IPV6 we should apply same charging scheme. On registration LIR can get /32 net IPV6 for each aditional /32 +1 EURO. Off course that price may go up or down in depend of what is collected from annual fees to can cover the budget calculated by the formula I posted in previous mail. When someday we using only IPV6 and IF all LIRs needs only 1 x /32 (very very unlikely) or only few LIRs get couple extra /32 IPV6 (unlikely) then can lift these 350 euro annual fee to balance the budget. Next week I will summarize everything with changes in one mail and will post again. It is very good and productive to hear as many oppinions as posible, also some official staff from RIPE NCC to say what what they think. Have a nice weekend. Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Mohammad Oslani wrote:
Hi,
I am sure the same discussion we had in the ARIN mailing list some years ago. And the result of that discussion was, RIRs are not the judges and can not decide that no one can sell their IPs on the open market. The transfer policy is clear enough I think. However, this open market for IPv4 will last only some years and then we all have to use IPv6 and everything is normal again.
January 18, 2019 6:00 AM, info@cowmedia.de wrote:
Hi,
Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way to go about it.
But I do. I am a relatively new LIR (only 3 years membership) and have one of the last /22. Even in a membership and non-profit schema it is possible to design usage based billing procedure (some other same type organisations does this as well). And yes, definitively there is a different value you get based on the amount of ip allocations you have assigned to your LIR because you make in the end either money directly out of it (for example for server hosting companys) or indirectly. And the one who have more resources can sell more service and utilize them other more. And in the market there is a value/cost arround each /24 currently very high. We should setup a policy that dissallow selling ip space on the normal market. Only RIPE should be the one managing this and giving resources to members and also getting them back from them. A usage based member ship fee would be fair for every members and solve a lot of issues we currently have. And as the member fee will be discussed and approved every year there is already for next year the chance to change it this way.
I think it would be better to more regularly scan allocated resources and re-claim those which are not actively in use.
Theoretically this sounds a good idea. I have personally not used my full /22 yet, but at least one address in any of them. But if an allocated resource is used or not can not always be found out externally. THere can be regstriected acess with no direct routing. Usage of ip's only internally and many more. I don't think there should be any control for already assigned resources (this is different when requesting new resources) as a different charging scheme would automatically bring LIR's to a better management of the allocations and they will give back resources by themself. If a company really require the resources for future expansion there should be no need for them to give it back (but for sure they will have to pay the member fee for it)
I'd also hope that everyone taking the time to participate in this discussion has already rolled out IPv6 alongside their IPv4.
I personally have, but this depends on the requirements of LIRs and their customer. If they only host applications that right now doesnt support IPv6 then there is no really need to deploy it already now. But in general I agree that everything should be deployed in dual stack as soon as possible till a switch-over can be made or even better if for isolated controlled use v6 only can be utilized.
If everyone is waiting for others to deploy then we're going to get nowhere.
Agree.
Michael
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mohammad%40hugeserver...
-- Mohammad Oslani HugeServer Networks, LLC | Premium Dedicated Servers and Colocation Mohammad@HugeServer.com | O : 888-842-8570 x1200 | F : 213-402-6061
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net
Hi, On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 01:21:27PM +0200, ivaylo wrote:
Yes, you are right the maths do not allow. In future it is sure we will have to migrate to IPV6 because IPV4 cant cover the needs.
The future is now. Actually, that future was 10 years ago, and because everybody was too lazy, we're in that situation today. There is no "we can just wait until IPv6 is there" - it will only happen if everybody does their job, and then votes with their money. Do not pay for cloud services that have no IPv6. Do not pay for transit providers that have no IPv6 (mostly a non-issue today, after folks like us played that tune for 10 years... we started 1995 with the "we will not buy from you if you do not offer IPv6" song). Do not buy from Software vendors that require IPv4 for their software to work. And so on. If you find a way today to make things work with IPv4 for you, someone else will be in the very same situation next year - not enough IPv4 space for them, and YOU will not have IPv6. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (11)
-
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Arash Naderpour -
Azer Karyagdy -
Gert Doering -
Iain Kay -
info＠cowmedia.de -
ivaylo -
Mohammad Oslani -
Peter Linder -
Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl -
Varasdy Imre Csaba