Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future for option A. We have 7 x IPv4 /22 and 7 x IPv6 /29 allocations and three ASNs. We are still a small LIR, even if we have a few thousand IPv4 addresses (7,168). No independent resources. Option A: Instead of €1,550.00 per year we would have to pay €10,400.00 per year - this is not a typo. Even if we would terminate customers and give back almost all IPv6 subnets, we still would have to pay €2,900.00 per year. With redistribution we normally only paid about €1,000.00 per year. I have no words for this.
I thought the resource category would be calculated from the highest of IPv4/IPv6 allocations unless they're equal...? I think you should end with IPv4 in cat 5 and IPv6 in cat 4 (hilariously) -> IPv4 resources are higher and determine category -> will be changed 2500 eur for resources You can get 2x /22 more before you'll move to cat 6 and pay 3500 eur for resources If you get rid of 3x /22 and truly embrace IPv6 and you'll move down to cat 4 and pay only 1800 for resources ;) (+150 eur for 3x ASN + 250 eur for base fee in all three examples) Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Akayo <ripe@akayo.eu> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 11:43:41 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024 Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future for option A. We have 7 x IPv4 /22 and 7 x IPv6 /29 allocations and three ASNs. We are still a small LIR, even if we have a few thousand IPv4 addresses (7,168). No independent resources. Option A: Instead of €1,550.00 per year we would have to pay €10,400.00 per year - this is not a typo. Even if we would terminate customers and give back almost all IPv6 subnets, we still would have to pay €2,900.00 per year. With redistribution we normally only paid about €1,000.00 per year. I have no words for this. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cb607041b26cd48d535ff08db3c2a25dd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638169923944251970%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=emtTK18wj%2BayYygsMk%2B6l%2BrYFMZOGgq88pdcaFvbwRc%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> Unsubscribe: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cb607041b26cd48d535ff08db3c2a25dd%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638169923944251970%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BHQ8KvWL2O0k964mW0%2B%2F0AvLfLsdzwI1Bj7DhbzBmzE%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kajtzu%40basen.net>
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:43:41PM +0200, Akayo wrote:
Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future for option A.
We have 7 x IPv4 /22 and 7 x IPv6 /29 allocations and three ASNs. We are still a small LIR, even if we have a few thousand IPv4 addresses (7,168). No independent resources.
Option A: Instead of €1,550.00 per year we would have to pay €10,400.00 per year - this is not a typo.
If i understand Model A correctly, it is category 5 + 3x ASN, so it is 2650 (2500+150) EUR per year. Considering that it is common to charge customers more for a service that includes assigned addresses that for one that does not, i do not see such increase to be hard to cover from that. -- Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
On Wed Apr 12, 2023 at 10:43:41PM +0200, Akayo wrote:
Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future for option A.
It feels like we're being gamed here but I don't know why. RIPE run this calculation for billing each year, it seems a needless distraction to have everyone run it themselves when they could send us the results for each option. Similarly they can work out which is the best option for each LIR and total them up to figure which would win the vote if particpation was even. All this though is distracting from the fundamental issue of having expanded/become more costly on the back of new LIRs mining the last IP block, mostly for profit it seems as we're now facing them selling up. The priority should be to agree what we want to spend and then how we want to split it up. I was fine letting RIPE make up a budget while the previous cost models were not expensive, now it looks to become expensive I'm no longer happy with that. I think the best option is to use current model, which is least worst as we've all been paying it for some years, apply RPI increase, then let RIPE determine how to live within it. Then we don't have all try and determine a viable business model for something we don't really know much detail of. brandon
Hello, Has anyone considered that model A carries the risk of subsidizing the IP traders joining the waiting list? Potentially this will enable IP traders to register and maintain many LIRs with lower upfront (1250EUR) and recurring cost (250EUR) base membership fee for those without allocations. Essentially allowing malicious actors to game the waiting list system by maintaining many LIRs and possibly impact the democratic voting system since LIRs get the same vote weight even if they pay less. I believe, having a low entry level such as this will risk an exodus of IP holders and ranges to other regions where there is a lower fees while also incurring substantially higher costs for longterm RIPE members. Best regards Adminor AB Alexander Norman -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> För Brandon Butterworth Skickat: Thursday, 13 April 2023 18:06 Till: Akayo <ripe@akayo.eu> Kopia: members-discuss@ripe.net Ämne: Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024 On Wed Apr 12, 2023 at 10:43:41PM +0200, Akayo wrote:
Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future for option A.
It feels like we're being gamed here but I don't know why. RIPE run this calculation for billing each year, it seems a needless distraction to have everyone run it themselves when they could send us the results for each option. Similarly they can work out which is the best option for each LIR and total them up to figure which would win the vote if particpation was even. All this though is distracting from the fundamental issue of having expanded/become more costly on the back of new LIRs mining the last IP block, mostly for profit it seems as we're now facing them selling up. The priority should be to agree what we want to spend and then how we want to split it up. I was fine letting RIPE make up a budget while the previous cost models were not expensive, now it looks to become expensive I'm no longer happy with that. I think the best option is to use current model, which is least worst as we've all been paying it for some years, apply RPI increase, then let RIPE determine how to live within it. Then we don't have all try and determine a viable business model for something we don't really know much detail of. brandon _______________________________________________ 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/alexander%40adminor.n...
A different slant on model A subsidising IP traders is that it may encourage LIRs sitting on unused IPs to release them into the market. We are a small community LIR but cannot afford to buy more IPs, which would be put to immediate use. Paul Newton F4RN On Mon, 17 Apr 2023, 18:35 Alexander Norman, <alexander@adminor.net> wrote:
Hello,
Has anyone considered that model A carries the risk of subsidizing the IP traders joining the waiting list? Potentially this will enable IP traders to register and maintain many LIRs with lower upfront (1250EUR) and recurring cost (250EUR) base membership fee for those without allocations.
Essentially allowing malicious actors to game the waiting list system by maintaining many LIRs and possibly impact the democratic voting system since LIRs get the same vote weight even if they pay less.
I believe, having a low entry level such as this will risk an exodus of IP holders and ranges to other regions where there is a lower fees while also incurring substantially higher costs for longterm RIPE members.
Best regards Adminor AB Alexander Norman
-----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> För Brandon Butterworth Skickat: Thursday, 13 April 2023 18:06 Till: Akayo <ripe@akayo.eu> Kopia: members-discuss@ripe.net Ämne: Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
On Wed Apr 12, 2023 at 10:43:41PM +0200, Akayo wrote:
Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future for option A.
It feels like we're being gamed here but I don't know why.
RIPE run this calculation for billing each year, it seems a needless distraction to have everyone run it themselves when they could send us the results for each option.
Similarly they can work out which is the best option for each LIR and total them up to figure which would win the vote if particpation was even.
All this though is distracting from the fundamental issue of having expanded/become more costly on the back of new LIRs mining the last IP block, mostly for profit it seems as we're now facing them selling up.
The priority should be to agree what we want to spend and then how we want to split it up. I was fine letting RIPE make up a budget while the previous cost models were not expensive, now it looks to become expensive I'm no longer happy with that.
I think the best option is to use current model, which is least worst as we've all been paying it for some years, apply RPI increase, then let RIPE determine how to live within it. Then we don't have all try and determine a viable business model for something we don't really know much detail of.
brandon
_______________________________________________ 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/alexander%40adminor.n... _______________________________________________ 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/paul.newton%40f4rn.or...
Hello, They are doing the join and wait at the current prices! Regards, Claudiu Foleanu April 17, 2023 7:36 PM, "Alexander Norman" <alexander@adminor.net> wrote:
Hello,
Has anyone considered that model A carries the risk of subsidizing the IP traders joining the waiting list? Potentially this will enable IP traders to register and maintain many LIRs with lower upfront (1250EUR) and recurring cost (250EUR) base membership fee for those without allocations.
Essentially allowing malicious actors to game the waiting list system by maintaining many LIRs and possibly impact the democratic voting system since LIRs get the same vote weight even if they pay less.
I believe, having a low entry level such as this will risk an exodus of IP holders and ranges to other regions where there is a lower fees while also incurring substantially higher costs for longterm RIPE members.
Best regards Adminor AB Alexander Norman
-----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> För Brandon Butterworth Skickat: Thursday, 13 April 2023 18:06 Till: Akayo <ripe@akayo.eu> Kopia: members-discuss@ripe.net Ämne: Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme Models 2024
On Wed Apr 12, 2023 at 10:43:41PM +0200, Akayo wrote:
Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future for option A.
It feels like we're being gamed here but I don't know why.
RIPE run this calculation for billing each year, it seems a needless distraction to have everyone run it themselves when they could send us the results for each option.
Similarly they can work out which is the best option for each LIR and total them up to figure which would win the vote if particpation was even.
All this though is distracting from the fundamental issue of having expanded/become more costly on the back of new LIRs mining the last IP block, mostly for profit it seems as we're now facing them selling up.
The priority should be to agree what we want to spend and then how we want to split it up. I was fine letting RIPE make up a budget while the previous cost models were not expensive, now it looks to become expensive I'm no longer happy with that.
I think the best option is to use current model, which is least worst as we've all been paying it for some years, apply RPI increase, then let RIPE determine how to live within it. Then we don't have all try and determine a viable business model for something we don't really know much detail of.
brandon
_______________________________________________ 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/alexander%40adminor.n... _______________________________________________ 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/claudiu.foleanu%40tho...
Brandon et al
On Apr 13, 2023, at 12:06, Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> wrote:
I think the best option is to use current model, which is least worst as we've all been paying it for some years, apply RPI increase, then let RIPE determine how to live within it. Then we don't have all try and determine a viable business model for something we don't really know much detail of.
I would second that as a proposal. Perhaps fewer business class flights to NCC events to use up the travel budget would help towards balancing the books going forward. Thanks f
Exactly, your calculations are wrong, or maybe you used old calculator Also, regarding LIR votes, additional LIRs do not get any additional votes, you get only 1 vote per company even if you have few LIR accounts. | | On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 05:19:53 PM GMT+3, Akayo <ripe@akayo.eu> wrote: Today we received the email of 12th April 2023 about the RIPE NCC charging scheme models A, B and C for 2024. Of course we used the calculator to find out how much we would be required to pay in future for option A. We have 7 x IPv4 /22 and 7 x IPv6 /29 allocations and three ASNs. We are still a small LIR, even if we have a few thousand IPv4 addresses (7,168). No independent resources. Option A: Instead of €1,550.00 per year we would have to pay €10,400.00 per year - this is not a typo. Even if we would terminate customers and give back almost all IPv6 subnets, we still would have to pay €2,900.00 per year. With redistribution we normally only paid about €1,000.00 per year. I have no words for this. _______________________________________________ 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/eisina%40yahoo.com
participants (9)
-
Akayo -
Alexander Norman -
Asta S. -
Brandon Butterworth -
claudiu.foleanu＠thorpanel.com -
Fearghas Mckay -
Kaj Niemi -
Ondrej Zajicek -
Paul Newton