On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Lu Heng wrote:

Well, if the new 2012 charging scheme was processed, then it will be based on amount of resource we are using.

Otherwise, as new comer(we too.), we pay more than old ones. it does make for new start-up more difficult in some ways, and protected the old ones. as the argument that the time the Lir have got the IP address which then it was "cheaper", doesn't really stand on it's ground, because today, the new IP and old IP has same value. For example, if you have 1Million dollar by 1990, if you kept till today at home, you still spend the money as it is today's 1 million dollar, but not the real money converted to today's value(which will be way more than 1M due to inflation).

if you had 20 kilos of silver coins with julus ceasar's ugly face on them 2000 years ago, they're still exchangable for exactly the same work/assets as they were back then. as resources are assets, their value should be represented in gold/silver, not in "representative currency money" by your theory, so you're thinking the wrong way around. there is one point in your argumentation, but you're missing it, and that is that by the time the "old lirs" became lirs, you just got a /16 or /15 or /14, when we became lir, you got a /18 or /19 or /20, and when "new people" become lirs now they get a /21 or /22 :P in 1990 btw, ripe wasn't even around yet, and anyone requesting ips at internic just got them there (and most still have them today and pay nothing ;) this includes some very very large networks.

The same goes for IP, if IP's price goes up, it not only benefits the new comer who got the IP but also the old ones who already had the IP. If everybody is holding something has same value, why one party should be paying more while another should be paying less.

you're a lir, you're not even supposed to "hold ips" you're supposed to be a bureau that registers ips and ASNs for other people (PI or assiging your PA space to end-users).

I had a discussion with one of Ripe people, we also both think that Ripe might should be charging member based on amount of IP they are using(which

ripe members should not be using any ip at all (as a member), the ip registration belongs in a completely different branch/department than the "isp playing part" which most operate as well. (there are very few providers that have a seperate LIR department, and most that do usually only use it for internal assignments to their branches and sub-companies) the fact that most de-facto combine this and don't perform LIR services for third parties doesn't mean that that is the way it was intended.

is "real fair"), but they cannot do it. I don't know if everybody realize this: Most large company spend less on their millions IP than their coffees(Think of that, in per IP costs term, the one in extra large are paying 5500 Euro for about 10 million IPs, which means 0.00000055 Euro/Ip/year for them, while for small ones around 50 cents/ip/year, which is almost 1 million times more expensive than what the large ones paying). So the solution might be raise the "large" member's fee and lower small member's fee, which was exactly what charging scheme was trying to do. My personal opinion on the new charging scheme, it just was not raise enough for the extra large ones. otherwise it will get pass:)

you are "contributing" to ripe as a -member-, this makes you a LIR, this gives you the opportunity to register resources for third parties, and that's about where it ends. there is no link between ips and price, there is an "administrative cost" per resource registration (block of ips/asn) that you pay to ripe, so ripe, as an association of lirs, can cover it's operating costs.

But on the other side of the story, I mean the current fees are only few thousands euro a year, it is less costs then anything else in your business, your server, you data center, your peering, it is almost the cheapest thing in this business, I do think ripe is very efficiency organization based on what amount of resource it's managing. Even though I do think it might not be very fair for most small ones and new comers, but personally I complaint on something already happened might not be a very good idea, it might be more worth to spend more than discuss the 2013's charging scheme will looks like. See if we can get more fair this time:)

anyway, move on to ipv6, problem solved, plenty of space there. (more than there will ever be people or computers in the entire universe ;) we can currently give out 4 billion 32 bit asn's (maybe we should have made that 64 bit right away to match the usual 64 bit subnet mask on ipv6 ;) but both on ipv6 and asn's i don't see any issues for a few centuries to come we can "stretch" ipv4 by adding costs to it, making the old e-class space routable, reclaiming the us-dod networks, maybe even reversing some "private address space" networks such as the 10/8 and most of the 127/8 (no reason why "localhost" needs a whole /8 after all, etc, but why the hell should we, just get it over with, it's gone, MOVE ON TO IPV6 - NOW. the sooner ipv4 runs out, the better, it gives ppl that didn't implement ipv6 yet a kick in the butt to move along or move out of the way in short: get ipv6, or get out of this line of business. -fast-. and as for "adding cost", even if you make it a few million per year, you still won't motivate multinationals to give up address space because they simply don't have anyone capable of understanding the profitability, big old companies are clueless and slow and will never get the point (which is why they didn't implement ipv6 yet in most cases ;) nobody in their organisation is going to take the responsibility to figure out what ips they have and return the unused ones (in some cases, all of them ;) as they're all just getting their monthly wage and nobody is willing to take risks, in short: they'll just pay whatever ripe (we, the members) put on the invoice, and not give back the (unused) ips. ripe gets a lot of money, has to pay more taxes, and still doesn't get more ipv4 :P (not to mention that 32 bit addressing limits it to a few years after that anyway, and then they still did not implement ipv6) so that doesn't work, its not a solution, its a delay to the real solution, which is ipv6. -roll out ipv6- -today-.

Lu

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, <poty@iiat.ru> wrote:

...

...

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Comunicaciones ACOTELSA Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:18 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees

...

...

And I don�t like speak about the general meetings to deal the new charge scheme because in my enterprise, with only one /26 IPv4, we can�t pay the cost to go to the general meeting (travel, salary) and I and imagine that there are more like us so only the big enterprise can assist, negotiate and vote (although we can use the internet vote).

Yes! You knew this! Why you don't use your vote rights through the Internet then? It doesn't rise you expenses and you have had the full ability to vote for all questions since this year! Many LIRs got the opportunity at the last meeting. Our company can't (like yours) go to each general meeting, but I took every opportunity for 3 year already to vote electronically!

...

In resume, I can't understand why a foundation increase its expenses year over year.

If you don't take part in the community discussions and don't vote - you'll never know why. You can read all about last GM and learn that for the coming year RIPE NCC will publish expenses in more details. You can suggest to eliminate an activity to lower the overall cost and if you have support - the increases may stop!

Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

---- 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.

-- -- 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.