We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. I feel quite strange being now classified as small, because we are using the smallest assignment possible (one /21 IPv4, one /32 IPv6, one AS). I studied the computational algorithm for assigning points, and I feel quite strange points for IPv4 being calculated this way: (first year of allocation LESS 1992) * IPv4 units; in our case, this means => 2011 - 1992 * 1 => 19. See http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/billing/how-to-calculat... for scoring method. This means every one asking first block allocation after year 2008 will be classified SMALL, despite of his real dimensions and resources. This is quite punishing for new comers like us, and not fair at all as a fee computing method. It looks like more we asked far from year 1992, more we have to pay. I don't see really a logic in this method. Any opinion? Can someone enlight me please? Antonio Nati
This means every one asking first block allocation after year 2008 will be classified SMALL, despite of his real dimensions and resources.
This is quite punishing for new comers like us, and not fair at all as a fee computing method.
It's like flights - the later you leave it to travel-date the more expensive they become. Rob
On 13/12/2011 17:15, LIR wrote:
We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small.
Did you see the previous conversation on list about the membership fee and the fact that for 2012 we are reusing the 2011 calculation rather than using a new model? J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks
Il 13/12/2011 20:16, James Blessing ha scritto:
We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. Did you see the previous conversation on list about the membership fee and the fact that for 2012 we are reusing the 2011 calculation rather
On 13/12/2011 17:15, LIR wrote: than using a new model?
I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind. Anyway, I find this way of calculating is not fair at all, despite of used. This model does not compute real usage of resources, but penalizes new entries and gives resources for free to old members. Regards, Tonino
J
On 13/12/2011 19:23, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:16, James Blessing ha scritto:
We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. Did you see the previous conversation on list about the membership fee and the fact that for 2012 we are reusing the 2011 calculation rather
On 13/12/2011 17:15, LIR wrote: than using a new model?
I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind.
Ah, then try starting here... http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/members-discuss/2011-October/thread.html J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks
Il 13/12/2011 20:26, James Blessing ha scritto:
On 13/12/2011 19:23, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:16, James Blessing ha scritto:
We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. Did you see the previous conversation on list about the membership fee and the fact that for 2012 we are reusing the 2011 calculation rather
On 13/12/2011 17:15, LIR wrote: than using a new model? I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind. Ah, then try starting here... http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/members-discuss/2011-October/thread.html
Thanks, done, and that did not improve my understanding. Actual method penalises start-up companies and protect old operators, charging at very different rates. Regards, Tonino
J
On 13/12/11 22:26, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:26, James Blessing ha scritto:
On 13/12/2011 19:23, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:16, James Blessing ha scritto:
We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. Did you see the previous conversation on list about the membership fee and the fact that for 2012 we are reusing the 2011 calculation rather
On 13/12/2011 17:15, LIR wrote: than using a new model? I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind. Ah, then try starting here... http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/members-discuss/2011-October/thread.html
Thanks, done, and that did not improve my understanding.
Actual method penalises start-up companies and protect old operators, charging at very different rates.
The new charging scheme would probably have resulted in your payments going down but unfortunately it wasn't accepted by the members. Nigel
Il 13/12/2011 23:46, Nigel Titley ha scritto:
On 13/12/11 22:26, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:26, James Blessing ha scritto:
On 13/12/2011 19:23, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:16, James Blessing ha scritto:
We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. Did you see the previous conversation on list about the membership fee and the fact that for 2012 we are reusing the 2011 calculation rather
On 13/12/2011 17:15, LIR wrote: than using a new model? I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind. Ah, then try starting here... http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/members-discuss/2011-October/thread.html Thanks, done, and that did not improve my understanding.
Actual method penalises start-up companies and protect old operators, charging at very different rates. The new charging scheme would probably have resulted in your payments going down but unfortunately it wasn't accepted by the members.
Which is the reason? There was a public vote with a public result? Tonino
That is correct. At the last General Meeting. Sent via BlackBerry® from GCCIX -----Original Message----- From: LIR <lir@lanto.it> Sender: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:22:47 To: <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees Il 13/12/2011 23:46, Nigel Titley ha scritto:
On 13/12/11 22:26, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:26, James Blessing ha scritto:
On 13/12/2011 19:23, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:16, James Blessing ha scritto:
We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. Did you see the previous conversation on list about the membership fee and the fact that for 2012 we are reusing the 2011 calculation rather
On 13/12/2011 17:15, LIR wrote: than using a new model? I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind. Ah, then try starting here... http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/members-discuss/2011-October/thread.html Thanks, done, and that did not improve my understanding.
Actual method penalises start-up companies and protect old operators, charging at very different rates. The new charging scheme would probably have resulted in your payments going down but unfortunately it wasn't accepted by the members.
Which is the reason? There was a public vote with a public result? Tonino ---- 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.
On 13/12/11 23:22, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 23:46, Nigel Titley ha scritto:
On 13/12/11 22:26, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:26, James Blessing ha scritto:
On 13/12/2011 19:23, LIR wrote:
Il 13/12/2011 20:16, James Blessing ha scritto:
On 13/12/2011 17:15, LIR wrote: > We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been > surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. Did you see the previous conversation on list about the membership fee and the fact that for 2012 we are reusing the 2011 calculation rather than using a new model? I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind. Ah, then try starting here... http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/members-discuss/2011-October/thread.html Thanks, done, and that did not improve my understanding.
Actual method penalises start-up companies and protect old operators, charging at very different rates. The new charging scheme would probably have resulted in your payments going down but unfortunately it wasn't accepted by the members.
Which is the reason? There was a public vote with a public result?
Yes. The charging scheme is always voted on by the membership, every year. You have one vote like every other member. The results are minuted and the minutes are publically available. Nigel
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Nigel Titley wrote:
Which is the reason? There was a public vote with a public result?
Yes. The charging scheme is always voted on by the membership, every year.
Hello, I've been a bit far from these issues, but as far as i understood, the charging scheme wasn't directly voted upon by members, right? Members voted on the Yearly Budget, and the charging scheme is just a subset of that, correct? It was not possible to approve the charging scheme, and at the same time (with a different cast of votes) reject the Budget, right? Regards, Carlos
My understanding is that whilst we were voting on the charging scheme, most people were objecting to the budget and that's why it failed. The problem was that we couldnt vote on these individually .. And the down side is that the spending will continue regardless. On the day there were comments about just spending from reserves and that's what they were there for ... With an after thought mention of "we'll see if there is anywhere we can trim some fat" I specifically raised a budgetary question at the AGM re RPKI which was deflected and dropped before the vote so no-one had the information requested in advance of the vote (€1.6m spent to date on RPKI and more to come as it was voted through) etc. When quizzed on the budgets and why we had no costs we were told that the costs should have been included over the last few years but were omitted and a promise that they would be detailed for next year. I'm still not sure how/where we get to review these other than to reject another charging scheme and so on until reserves are spent. (which would be pointless). Hopefully someone will advise me. In other organisations I am a member of the budget is always voted on at the AGM. If it fails then the previous years budget prevails until a consensus and EGM (or next AGM) agree the new budget. Staffing costs are of course the highest .. There were also flippant remarks about not needing approval for choosing the brand of coffee used in house but tbh that just shows in my mind how little consideration there is for our thoughts on the budget / etc (I don't care which brand of coffee they use, I do care how they spend our money overall however). The membership fees are small and almost irrelevant, the principal however is not .. And the additional resource fees add up to potentially a hell of a lot more both in ripe cost and the real cost of admin and compliance.... All at a time when our euro buys less and less .. Or in other words our costs are increasing and our profits being eroded. -- Jon Morby fido.net - the internet made simple! tel: 0845 004 3050 fax: 0845 004 3051 On 14 Dec 2011, at 18:58, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Nigel Titley wrote:
Which is the reason? There was a public vote with a public result?
Yes. The charging scheme is always voted on by the membership, every year.
Hello,
I've been a bit far from these issues, but as far as i understood, the charging scheme wasn't directly voted upon by members, right? Members voted on the Yearly Budget, and the charging scheme is just a subset of that, correct? It was not possible to approve the charging scheme, and at the same time (with a different cast of votes) reject the Budget, right?
Regards, Carlos
---- 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.
Jon, a very sensible comment amongst a lot of trash. I agree the charging scheme and budget are not directly related - other than the total income and expenditure over a period should balance in a Not for Profit Organisation. The schema is just about how it is recovered - who pays what - not about how much is spent by the NPO. The board should note that this is a protest also over costs not necessarily just the charging for IP and in particular the practice of sub assigning IP addresses to customers and avoiding the charging scheme. However I have to say certainly the new Schema had been well debated over a long time and I personally feel vested interests stopped this when the majority were supportive or ambivalent. I have been a voluntary board member for many NPO organisations and the board should have avoided this. Most boards I have worked on do not necessarily ask for the budget to be voted on rather the work program (with costs) and the recovery, there being a trade off. In austerity days emphasis should always be about controlling costs - something RIPE are not good at. As long as charges are not going up people are happy. Our problem is the workload is increasing and the income is not keeping pace. Also by LAW people in Belgium have to receive a wage increase every 3 months in line with the Gezondheidsindex so we have to pay staff more. If people are not happy either change the board (again the vested interests always win because the little guys don’t get organised) or support them in that they are doing a difficult job unpaid for little thanks. Everyone can do a better job than them see all the e-mails (joke). I personally feel that while more could be done on cost control the Schema makes sense and the Board has done a good job. It's a pity the vested interests have delayed the control on the IP space another year so they can continue to profit. Phil Barton HITRAIL -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jon Morby Sent: 14 December 2011 19:12 To: Carlos Friacas Cc: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees My understanding is that whilst we were voting on the charging scheme, most people were objecting to the budget and that's why it failed. The problem was that we couldnt vote on these individually .. And the down side is that the spending will continue regardless. On the day there were comments about just spending from reserves and that's what they were there for ... With an after thought mention of "we'll see if there is anywhere we can trim some fat" I specifically raised a budgetary question at the AGM re RPKI which was deflected and dropped before the vote so no-one had the information requested in advance of the vote (€1.6m spent to date on RPKI and more to come as it was voted through) etc. When quizzed on the budgets and why we had no costs we were told that the costs should have been included over the last few years but were omitted and a promise that they would be detailed for next year. I'm still not sure how/where we get to review these other than to reject another charging scheme and so on until reserves are spent. (which would be pointless). Hopefully someone will advise me. In other organisations I am a member of the budget is always voted on at the AGM. If it fails then the previous years budget prevails until a consensus and EGM (or next AGM) agree the new budget. Staffing costs are of course the highest .. There were also flippant remarks about not needing approval for choosing the brand of coffee used in house but tbh that just shows in my mind how little consideration there is for our thoughts on the budget / etc (I don't care which brand of coffee they use, I do care how they spend our money overall however). The membership fees are small and almost irrelevant, the principal however is not .. And the additional resource fees add up to potentially a hell of a lot more both in ripe cost and the real cost of admin and compliance.... All at a time when our euro buys less and less .. Or in other words our costs are increasing and our profits being eroded. -- Jon Morby fido.net - the internet made simple! tel: 0845 004 3050 fax: 0845 004 3051 On 14 Dec 2011, at 18:58, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Nigel Titley wrote:
Which is the reason? There was a public vote with a public result?
Yes. The charging scheme is always voted on by the membership, every year.
Hello,
I've been a bit far from these issues, but as far as i understood, the charging scheme wasn't directly voted upon by members, right? Members voted on the Yearly Budget, and the charging scheme is just a subset of that, correct? It was not possible to approve the charging scheme, and at the same time (with a different cast of votes) reject the Budget, right?
Regards, Carlos
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4681 - Release Date: 12/14/11
Hello, I, for one, think that the RIPE is globally doing a very good job. They are available, their training are great and they do a very difficult work by managing this rare but mandatory ressources that are IPv4 addresses. You do not have to be LIR to obtain IP address, LIR is something that you add to your business because you think that it adds value, so you are ready to pay for it, and it is not a few hundred euros that will make a difference. It is a democratic organization, anyone can engage himself in its gouvernance and change the rules if needed. There is a lot of thing around us that we have to pay for, which are more expensive and less useful but, because we can not do anything about it, we just doesn't complain. We are lucky that IPv4 addresses are not provided by someone who do that only for profit... Laurent SEROR Outscale 2011/12/15 Phil Barton <phil@hitrail.com>
Jon, a very sensible comment amongst a lot of trash. I agree the charging scheme and budget are not directly related - other than the total income and expenditure over a period should balance in a Not for Profit Organisation. The schema is just about how it is recovered - who pays what - not about how much is spent by the NPO. The board should note that this is a protest also over costs not necessarily just the charging for IP and in particular the practice of sub assigning IP addresses to customers and avoiding the charging scheme. However I have to say certainly the new Schema had been well debated over a long time and I personally feel vested interests stopped this when the majority were supportive or ambivalent. I have been a voluntary board member for many NPO organisations and the board should have avoided this. Most boards I have worked on do not necessarily ask for the budget to be voted on rather the work program (with costs) and the recovery, there being a trade off. In austerity days emphasis should always be about controlling costs - something RIPE are not good at. As long as charges are not going up people are happy. Our problem is the workload is increasing and the income is not keeping pace. Also by LAW people in Belgium have to receive a wage increase every 3 months in line with the Gezondheidsindex so we have to pay staff more.
If people are not happy either change the board (again the vested interests always win because the little guys don’t get organised) or support them in that they are doing a difficult job unpaid for little thanks. Everyone can do a better job than them see all the e-mails (joke). I personally feel that while more could be done on cost control the Schema makes sense and the Board has done a good job. It's a pity the vested interests have delayed the control on the IP space another year so they can continue to profit. Phil Barton HITRAIL
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jon Morby Sent: 14 December 2011 19:12 To: Carlos Friacas Cc: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
My understanding is that whilst we were voting on the charging scheme, most people were objecting to the budget and that's why it failed.
The problem was that we couldnt vote on these individually .. And the down side is that the spending will continue regardless.
On the day there were comments about just spending from reserves and that's what they were there for ... With an after thought mention of "we'll see if there is anywhere we can trim some fat"
I specifically raised a budgetary question at the AGM re RPKI which was deflected and dropped before the vote so no-one had the information requested in advance of the vote (€1.6m spent to date on RPKI and more to come as it was voted through) etc.
When quizzed on the budgets and why we had no costs we were told that the costs should have been included over the last few years but were omitted and a promise that they would be detailed for next year.
I'm still not sure how/where we get to review these other than to reject another charging scheme and so on until reserves are spent. (which would be pointless). Hopefully someone will advise me. In other organisations I am a member of the budget is always voted on at the AGM. If it fails then the previous years budget prevails until a consensus and EGM (or next AGM) agree the new budget.
Staffing costs are of course the highest .. There were also flippant remarks about not needing approval for choosing the brand of coffee used in house but tbh that just shows in my mind how little consideration there is for our thoughts on the budget / etc (I don't care which brand of coffee they use, I do care how they spend our money overall however).
The membership fees are small and almost irrelevant, the principal however is not .. And the additional resource fees add up to potentially a hell of a lot more both in ripe cost and the real cost of admin and compliance.... All at a time when our euro buys less and less .. Or in other words our costs are increasing and our profits being eroded.
-- Jon Morby fido.net - the internet made simple! tel: 0845 004 3050 fax: 0845 004 3051
On 14 Dec 2011, at 18:58, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Nigel Titley wrote:
Which is the reason? There was a public vote with a public result?
Yes. The charging scheme is always voted on by the membership, every year.
Hello,
I've been a bit far from these issues, but as far as i understood, the charging scheme wasn't directly voted upon by members, right? Members voted on the Yearly Budget, and the charging scheme is just a subset of that, correct? It was not possible to approve the charging scheme, and at the same time (with a different cast of votes) reject the Budget, right?
Regards, Carlos
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the
general page:
https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4681 - Release Date: 12/14/11
---- 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.
-- Cordialement, Laurent SEROR, Président OUTSCALE Tél : 0826.206.307 - poste 101 Fax : 01.83.62.92.89
On 14/12/11 18:40, Carlos Friacas wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Nigel Titley wrote:
Which is the reason? There was a public vote with a public result? Yes. The charging scheme is always voted on by the membership, every year. Hello,
I've been a bit far from these issues, but as far as i understood, the charging scheme wasn't directly voted upon by members, right? Members voted on the Yearly Budget, and the charging scheme is just a subset of that, correct? It was not possible to approve the charging scheme, and at the same time (with a different cast of votes) reject the Budget, right?
No, the members only vote on the charging scheme, they don't vote on the budget. The members *used* to vote on and approve the budget but they voluntarily and pretty near unanimously voted to give up this power several years ago. Nigel
W dniu 13.12.2011 20:23, LIR pisze:
I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind.
Anyway, I find this way of calculating is not fair at all, despite of used.
This model does not compute real usage of resources, but penalizes new entries and gives resources for free to old members.
Regards,
Tonino
I can't agree. W got our first resources about 5 years ago. First year we were "EXTRA SMALL", and then every year we are categorized "SMALL", altough we requested some more resources. And does 500 euro per year really makes any difference? Really?? Let's count IPv4 - you got /21 which is 1024 addresess which makes 50 cents (per year! about 4 cents a month!!) difference. And about fairness of that calculation - the later you get resources the more are they valuable, and they really are! -- Michał Margula :: <michal.margula@acsystemy.pl> AC Systemy Komputerowe Stanisław Bor spółka jawna 72-600 Świnoujście :: ul. Bohaterów Września 50/4 :: NIP 855-12-99-281
Il 13/12/2011 20:32, Michał Margula ha scritto:
W dniu 13.12.2011 20:23, LIR pisze:
I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind.
Anyway, I find this way of calculating is not fair at all, despite of used.
This model does not compute real usage of resources, but penalizes new entries and gives resources for free to old members.
Regards,
Tonino
I can't agree. W got our first resources about 5 years ago. First year we were "EXTRA SMALL", and then every year we are categorized "SMALL", altough we requested some more resources.
And does 500 euro per year really makes any difference? Really?? Let's count IPv4 - you got /21 which is 1024 addresess which makes 50 cents (per year! about 4 cents a month!!) difference.
And about fairness of that calculation - the later you get resources the more are they valuable, and they really are!
First, when IP were rarely used, a lot of companies got huge assignments because the ocean was so huge. Now that ocean has becomed smaller, who is wasting water must pay for what he consumes. Second, It is not acceptable that a company using 16 /21 IPv4 blocks is charged as one which uses 1 /21 block, just because the latter started later his business. This can remind a 'trust' protecting old players against new players. Regards, Tonino
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, LIR wrote:
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:28:47 +0100 From: LIR <lir@lanto.it> To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
Il 13/12/2011 20:32, Micha? Margula ha scritto:
W dniu 13.12.2011 20:23, LIR pisze:
I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind.
Anyway, I find this way of calculating is not fair at all, despite of used.
This model does not compute real usage of resources, but penalizes new entries and gives resources for free to old members.
Regards,
Tonino
I can't agree. W got our first resources about 5 years ago. First year we were "EXTRA SMALL", and then every year we are categorized "SMALL", altough we requested some more resources.
And does 500 euro per year really makes any difference? Really?? Let's count IPv4 - you got /21 which is 1024 addresess which makes 50 cents (per year! about 4 cents a month!!) difference.
And about fairness of that calculation - the later you get resources the more are they valuable, and they really are!
First, when IP were rarely used, a lot of companies got huge assignments because the ocean was so huge. Now that ocean has becomed smaller, who is wasting water must pay for what he consumes.
Second, It is not acceptable that a company using 16 /21 IPv4 blocks is charged as one which uses 1 /21 block, just because the latter started later his business.
This can remind a 'trust' protecting old players against new players.
Regards,
Tonino
A large ISP does not neccesarily demand more work from the RIPE NCC then a starting one, usually they (small ones) need more guidance in the beginning. Also large ISP:s may have larger (amounts of) customers then a small isp. We are paying for RIPE NCC membership services, not solely for IP:s (imho) Its the same case with the oil prices, oil is runnig out and will become more expensive, also situations is different countries (political, natural disasters) affect the oil price. Do you have the same complaint when you fill up your car at the gasstation when the price has gone up? Rgds, Raymond
---- 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.
-- ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Senior System Specialist Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A raymond.jetten@elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************
Il 14/12/2011 07:56, Raymond Jetten ha scritto:
A large ISP does not neccesarily demand more work from the RIPE NCC then a starting one, usually they (small ones) need more guidance in the beginning. Also large ISP:s may have larger (amounts of) customers then a small isp. We are paying for RIPE NCC membership services, not solely for IP:s (imho)
So this can be true for first years, not for life. Would more fair to put on same level all ISP after some years (but no more than three).
Its the same case with the oil prices, oil is runnig out and will become more expensive, also situations is different countries (political, natural disasters) affect the oil price. Do you have the same complaint when you fill up your car at the gasstation when the price has gone up?
When I fill up my car I do not pay gasoline depending on the year I bought my car. Regards, Tonino
Hi, On Dec 14, 2011, at 10:15 AM, LIR wrote:
Its the same case with the oil prices, oil is runnig out and will become more expensive, also situations is different countries (political, natural disasters) affect the oil price. Do you have the same complaint when you fill up your car at the gasstation when the price has gone up?
When I fill up my car I do not pay gasoline depending on the year I bought my car.
you also don't pay the resources you take on the year you created your company (compared as when you bought the car), rather you pay the resource based on the year you obtained the resource (compared the day you fill in the gasoline to your car). The only difference is, gasoline you have to refill again and again and so it goes more and more expensive. The resource is permanent and won't get more expensive (depends on charging scheme). Cheers, Sven
Do we enter a philosophical contest here ? What are the charges upgrade between super small and small then ? That is concrete at least ? -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Wiese Sent: 14 December 2011 09:30 To: LIR Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees Hi, On Dec 14, 2011, at 10:15 AM, LIR wrote:
Its the same case with the oil prices, oil is runnig out and will become more expensive, also situations is different countries (political, natural disasters) affect the oil price. Do you have the same complaint when you fill up your car at the gasstation when the price has gone up?
When I fill up my car I do not pay gasoline depending on the year I bought my car.
you also don't pay the resources you take on the year you created your company (compared as when you bought the car), rather you pay the resource based on the year you obtained the resource (compared the day you fill in the gasoline to your car). The only difference is, gasoline you have to refill again and again and so it goes more and more expensive. The resource is permanent and won't get more expensive (depends on charging scheme). Cheers, Sven ---- 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. Our companies Lab are data/document management specialists, who hold the internationally recognized ISO 9001:2008 certification. As a professional of the financial sector ("Professionnel du Secteur Financier"), we are supervised by the Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF).We have been established in Luxembourg for over 30 years and currently service over 400 clients. Visit our websites: http://www.labgroup.com NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
On Dec 14, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Michel Maggi wrote:
Do we enter a philosophical contest here ?
Good one ;)
What are the charges upgrade between super small and small then ? That is concrete at least ?
The difference between that two categories is 500 EUR per year, if I am not mistaken. Basically you can remain only in extra-small if you obtain only IPv6 resources and a ASN and no IPv4 resource. Cheers, Sven
Hi all,
(compared the day you fill in the gasoline to your car)
i really do not like these comparisms. Consumed IP-addresses are not irretrievably consumed like fuel is. You can tend to the opinion 'once claimed always claimed', no new monetary assessment. You can also tend to the opinion 'each loaned IP-Range is to be regarded equally, whether newly assigned or assigned years ago'. What i can understand is some members 'feeling', the elder members did some 'protection of establishment'. Grüße aus dem schönen Wesel, Manfred F. Schramm
On 14/12/2011 09:27, Manfred F. Schramm wrote:
You can tend to the opinion 'once claimed always claimed', no new monetary assessment. You can also tend to the opinion 'each loaned IP-Range is to be regarded equally, whether newly assigned or assigned years ago'.
What i can understand is some members 'feeling', the elder members did some 'protection of establishment'.
The proposed (and counter proposed) fee structures for 2012 did try and address this by taking out the time limitations but the membership (or at least those that voted) did not believe that the final proposed fee structure was acceptable and therefore the 2011 one was re-used. The NCC board (I believe) have taken these views on board and are looking to propose a new structure for 2013 that addresses this issue, tries to tie membership fees to 'size' more accurately and also provides a fully costed breakdown of the individual elements in the activity plan for 2013. They will also have to take into account the tax implications of changing the charging structure. The membership will have plenty of time to read and respond to these documents when published and vote on them next year. If you have strong views or wish to publish your own ideas for a charging scheme I'm sure the NCC board (and the rest of the membership) will be willing to discuss them (or tear them to pieces as the mood dictates). J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks
up to now.. i have never spoken... i do now...!!! this guys are working at the edge.. it must be hot on the side of the sun... ip addresses getting low. and nobody concieve ip 6... it is a hard world...or whatever.. i WILL pay my price.. and i advice u must do the same.. thanks ripe.tahnks for everything...... ps:i am 50 years old..pls stand stiil...and be thankfull.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blessing" <jblessing@llnw.com> To: members-discuss@ripe.net Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees On 14/12/2011 09:27, Manfred F. Schramm wrote:
You can tend to the opinion 'once claimed always claimed', no new monetary assessment. You can also tend to the opinion 'each loaned IP-Range is to be regarded equally, whether newly assigned or assigned years ago'.
What i can understand is some members 'feeling', the elder members did some 'protection of establishment'.
The proposed (and counter proposed) fee structures for 2012 did try and address this by taking out the time limitations but the membership (or at least those that voted) did not believe that the final proposed fee structure was acceptable and therefore the 2011 one was re-used. The NCC board (I believe) have taken these views on board and are looking to propose a new structure for 2013 that addresses this issue, tries to tie membership fees to 'size' more accurately and also provides a fully costed breakdown of the individual elements in the activity plan for 2013. They will also have to take into account the tax implications of changing the charging structure. The membership will have plenty of time to read and respond to these documents when published and vote on them next year. If you have strong views or wish to publish your own ideas for a charging scheme I'm sure the NCC board (and the rest of the membership) will be willing to discuss them (or tear them to pieces as the mood dictates). J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks ---- 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. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, hakan hn. nebioglu wrote:
up to now.. i have never spoken... i do now...!!! this guys are working at the edge.. it must be hot on the side of the sun... ip addresses getting low. and nobody concieve ip 6... it is a hard world...or whatever..
we did. just that we cannot go to: - google - facebook - youtube - twitter with it, despite the fact that all of them have demonstrated to have a working set up more than 9 months ago. jeez people, it took us less time to migrate everything from ax.25 with bpq over ethernet to ipv4 back in the packet radio days than it's taking these people to "turn on" something they already have... as for cable and xdsl providers, they have no excuse at all, just put the stuff into -briding mode- with autoconfig for all i care and ditch the crappy pppoe/pppoa if that doesn't "work" on the CPE and you don't feel like shipping new ones or kicking your vendor in the butt and force them to make a firmware upgrade for 10 year old adsl modems. (even with 10 year old ones, there is no excuse for a 20 year old protocol not to be supported ;)
i WILL pay my price.. and i advice u must do the same..
thanks ripe.tahnks for everything...... ps:i am 50 years old..pls stand stiil...and be thankfull.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blessing" <jblessing@llnw.com> To: members-discuss@ripe.net Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
On 14/12/2011 09:27, Manfred F. Schramm wrote:
You can tend to the opinion 'once claimed always claimed', no new monetary assessment. You can also tend to the opinion 'each loaned IP-Range is to be regarded equally, whether newly assigned or assigned years ago'.
What i can understand is some members 'feeling', the elder members did some 'protection of establishment'.
The proposed (and counter proposed) fee structures for 2012 did try and address this by taking out the time limitations but the membership (or at least those that voted) did not believe that the final proposed fee structure was acceptable and therefore the 2011 one was re-used.
The NCC board (I believe) have taken these views on board and are looking to propose a new structure for 2013 that addresses this issue, tries to tie membership fees to 'size' more accurately and also provides a fully costed breakdown of the individual elements in the activity plan for 2013. They will also have to take into account the tax implications of changing the charging structure.
The membership will have plenty of time to read and respond to these documents when published and vote on them next year. If you have strong views or wish to publish your own ideas for a charging scheme I'm sure the NCC board (and the rest of the membership) will be willing to discuss them (or tear them to pieces as the mood dictates).
J
-- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks
---- 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.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
---- 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.
there are rules.!!? 1-i wont speak for the third time.. 2-telling the truth or looking for justice or magic-mushrooms or cocain; wont help anybody... even it should..:) 3-we cannot bgp uplevels, at the ipv6 case..just because , they are not into it.. even if, they refuse to use bgp 4.. i do " live" exact conditions u, may perceive.. guess it is "a fine life line" a-dont fight for ip4 b-try ipv6 and be free... z.h.n. ps1:first rule of ipv6.. you do not talk about ipv6 :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Olaf Kamphuis" <sven@cb3rob.net> To: "hakan hn. nebioglu" <hakan@acikisp.com> Cc: "James Blessing" <jblessing@llnw.com>, members-discuss@ripe.net Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:04:30 AM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, hakan hn. nebioglu wrote:
up to now.. i have never spoken... i do now...!!! this guys are working at the edge.. it must be hot on the side of the sun... ip addresses getting low. and nobody concieve ip 6... it is a hard world...or whatever..
we did. just that we cannot go to: - google - facebook - youtube - twitter with it, despite the fact that all of them have demonstrated to have a working set up more than 9 months ago. jeez people, it took us less time to migrate everything from ax.25 with bpq over ethernet to ipv4 back in the packet radio days than it's taking these people to "turn on" something they already have... as for cable and xdsl providers, they have no excuse at all, just put the stuff into -briding mode- with autoconfig for all i care and ditch the crappy pppoe/pppoa if that doesn't "work" on the CPE and you don't feel like shipping new ones or kicking your vendor in the butt and force them to make a firmware upgrade for 10 year old adsl modems. (even with 10 year old ones, there is no excuse for a 20 year old protocol not to be supported ;)
i WILL pay my price.. and i advice u must do the same..
thanks ripe.tahnks for everything...... ps:i am 50 years old..pls stand stiil...and be thankfull.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blessing" <jblessing@llnw.com> To: members-discuss@ripe.net Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
On 14/12/2011 09:27, Manfred F. Schramm wrote:
You can tend to the opinion 'once claimed always claimed', no new monetary assessment. You can also tend to the opinion 'each loaned IP-Range is to be regarded equally, whether newly assigned or assigned years ago'.
What i can understand is some members 'feeling', the elder members did some 'protection of establishment'.
The proposed (and counter proposed) fee structures for 2012 did try and address this by taking out the time limitations but the membership (or at least those that voted) did not believe that the final proposed fee structure was acceptable and therefore the 2011 one was re-used.
The NCC board (I believe) have taken these views on board and are looking to propose a new structure for 2013 that addresses this issue, tries to tie membership fees to 'size' more accurately and also provides a fully costed breakdown of the individual elements in the activity plan for 2013. They will also have to take into account the tax implications of changing the charging structure.
The membership will have plenty of time to read and respond to these documents when published and vote on them next year. If you have strong views or wish to publish your own ideas for a charging scheme I'm sure the NCC board (and the rest of the membership) will be willing to discuss them (or tear them to pieces as the mood dictates).
J
-- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks
---- 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.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
---- 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.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
maybe it's time for ripe to send a letter by registered mail addressed -personally- to the chairman of the board of any big multinational company that it's time for them too to move onto ipv6 and set up a task-force to roll it out ASAP, as i'm under the impression that the dusty nerds at the noc did not make it clear enough to the management (years ago) that this HAS to be done ASAP and will cost them a few million euros somehow i think that in management terms "ipv6 is somethign they have read about in the news papers" but don't really see that its REQUIRED to stay in business very soon. they will then hire all kinds of expensive consultants which will get them to upgrade their stuff, as large multinationals always do, but at least things will get moving. there seems to be a lot of mis-communication about the "urgency" of the thing, if we end up with an internet where 1/3rd of it is ipv4 only, 1/3rd is dual stack and 1/3rd is ipv6 only, it's pretty much worthless. (and the ipv4 only part is going to lose their business sooner rather than later ;) no AAAA records for www.deutsche-bank.de and www.abnamro.nl don't tell me they don't have the cash to buy a few new routers or hire a consultant tomorrow :P etc. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, hakan hn. nebioglu wrote:
up to now.. i have never spoken... i do now...!!! this guys are working at the edge.. it must be hot on the side of the sun... ip addresses getting low. and nobody concieve ip 6... it is a hard world...or whatever..
i WILL pay my price.. and i advice u must do the same..
thanks ripe.tahnks for everything...... ps:i am 50 years old..pls stand stiil...and be thankfull.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blessing" <jblessing@llnw.com> To: members-discuss@ripe.net Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:32:47 PM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
On 14/12/2011 09:27, Manfred F. Schramm wrote:
You can tend to the opinion 'once claimed always claimed', no new monetary assessment. You can also tend to the opinion 'each loaned IP-Range is to be regarded equally, whether newly assigned or assigned years ago'.
What i can understand is some members 'feeling', the elder members did some 'protection of establishment'.
The proposed (and counter proposed) fee structures for 2012 did try and address this by taking out the time limitations but the membership (or at least those that voted) did not believe that the final proposed fee structure was acceptable and therefore the 2011 one was re-used.
The NCC board (I believe) have taken these views on board and are looking to propose a new structure for 2013 that addresses this issue, tries to tie membership fees to 'size' more accurately and also provides a fully costed breakdown of the individual elements in the activity plan for 2013. They will also have to take into account the tax implications of changing the charging structure.
The membership will have plenty of time to read and respond to these documents when published and vote on them next year. If you have strong views or wish to publish your own ideas for a charging scheme I'm sure the NCC board (and the rest of the membership) will be willing to discuss them (or tear them to pieces as the mood dictates).
J
-- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks
---- 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.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
---- 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.
Billing Scheme is quite flexible, if you take a closer look pon it. RIPE NCC can simply increase score points in future, or make up new start date (leter than 1992year), if you're worry about ripe wine (gas in this particular case). If the new scheme for 2012 was not approved there could be many reasons for that, and for me it simply means that there are a lot of work should be done to make it better and bring something new for 2013 (if we'll survive the end of the World) In my view, scheme should encourage NCC members move to IPv6, in lightly manner of course )). 14.12.2011 12:15, LIR пишет:
Il 14/12/2011 07:56, Raymond Jetten ha scritto:
A large ISP does not neccesarily demand more work from the RIPE NCC then a starting one, usually they (small ones) need more guidance in the beginning. Also large ISP:s may have larger (amounts of) customers then a small isp. We are paying for RIPE NCC membership services, not solely for IP:s (imho)
So this can be true for first years, not for life. Would more fair to put on same level all ISP after some years (but no more than three).
Its the same case with the oil prices, oil is runnig out and will become more expensive, also situations is different countries (political, natural disasters) affect the oil price. Do you have the same complaint when you fill up your car at the gasstation when the price has gone up? When I fill up my car I do not pay gasoline depending on the year I bought my car.
Regards,
Tonino
---- 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.
-- ~#~ Don't hesitate to make High Grade, just communicate! ~#~ Dmitry Samko, Network Engineer IT Department, AQUAFON-GSM Abkhazia, Sukhum ================ dsamko@aquafon.com +7 940 9980117
Hi Tonino,
Its the same case with the oil prices, oil is runnig out and will become more expensive, also situations is different countries (political, natural disasters) affect the oil price. Do you have the same complaint when you fill up your car at the gasstation when the price has gone up?
When I fill up my car I do not pay gasoline depending on the year I bought my car.
Regards,
Tonino
Maybe not based on the year you bought the car but most current car engines are far more efficient than a Pontiac Firebird with a V8 engine from 1969. Obviously you can debate if you want to go for a gasoline guzzler like a Firebird with a V8 or a more current model like a Hummer for instance. But you could also decide to move to something more fuel efficient like some kind of Hybrid. And simple economics show that with the fuel prices going up, more people will most likely go to a Hybrid like solution to avoid or lower that cost and the market for the Hummer will move away. (And yes I know that they already stopped building the Hummer.) So back on the topic, I work for a small LIR that was also upgraded (from Small to Medium). The question is will having more IP's increase the revenue (or revenue changes)? This particular LIR started early 2010, has 2 v4 prefixes and 1 v6 and an AS. Not having those resources, would not allow us to grow or do the business. Is this unfair as 'older' LIR don't get upgraded so fast? ( Besides that fact that I personally don't like a discussion where people talk about what is unfair because they missed the boat in the late 90's or early 00's and are hoping to get a benefit because they started later in the game ... ) I don't think that the current system is biased or unfair, as after 2 years we're upgraded to Medium and an ISP company that I worked for in 2002-2005, with a similar number of resources, is also still a Medium LIR. We're having similar number of total resources (in total between a /17 and /16 in the number of v4 addresses). So after 2 years, we are on a similar cost structure (638 euro per quarter) as a company that started about 12 years ago. Requiring the resources, means that there is a business case and that you have the customers for it. Personally I would say, skip the resource counting. Everybody is equal regardless of size or year of establishment and everyone pays the same membership fee (which in that case would end up around 2450 euro a year for each LIR.) Regards, Erik Bais
-- Jon Morby FidoNet - the internet made simple! 10 - 16 Tiller Road, London, E14 8PX tel: 0845 004 3050 / fax: 0845 004 3051 On 14 Dec 2011, at 06:56, Raymond Jetten wrote: Its the same case with the oil prices, oil is runnig out and will become more expensive, also situations is different countries (political, natural disasters) affect the oil price. Do you have the same complaint when you fill up your car at the gasstation when the price has gone up? yes and there have been strikes, blockades and even riots complaining about these price increases (and the 90% tax imposed by Government) ... at the end of the day the politicians seem to ignore these complaints, gloss over them and go back to their heavily subsidised bar with low priced drinks and free transportation ... Hopefully the board of RIPE will not treat these objections in the same light and will look to find a way of providing the same core services at a reduction in spending rather than at an increase this year / next year..... (and maybe even look at returning some of the reserves to us as members) Jon
On 14/12/11 19:17, Jon Morby wrote:
-- Jon Morby FidoNet - the internet made simple! 10 - 16 Tiller Road, London, E14 8PX tel: 0845 004 3050 / fax: 0845 004 3051
On 14 Dec 2011, at 06:56, Raymond Jetten wrote:
Its the same case with the oil prices, oil is runnig out and will become more expensive, also situations is different countries (political, natural disasters) affect the oil price. Do you have the same complaint when you fill up your car at the gasstation when the price has gone up?
yes and there have been strikes, blockades and even riots complaining about these price increases (and the 90% tax imposed by Government) ... at the end of the day the politicians seem to ignore these complaints, gloss over them and go back to their heavily subsidised bar with low priced drinks and free transportation ...
Hopefully the board of RIPE will not treat these objections in the same light and will look to find a way of providing the same core services at a reduction in spending rather than at an increase this year / next year..... (and maybe even look at returning some of the reserves to us as members)
We treat all comments from all members with consideration. It is sometimes difficult to work out consensus, but we do our best. As always, a polite comment carries more weight than a rude one. I'm actually rather pleased that we are at last getting some sort of debate. For many years this list was as quiet as the grave. We managed to trim enough off the budget this year to make up for the failure of the new charging scheme and with no loss of core services. The cost per member will continue to remain largely static or possibly decrease. Reserves have been returned to the members in the past and will be done so in the future whenever it is financially sensible to do so. And I'm not complaining, but unlike our revered politicians, none of the board get paid for this. We look on it as a way of putting back something of what the internet has given to us over the years. A Merry Christmas to all of you Nigel
“... And I'm not complaining, but unlike our revered politicians, none of the board get paid for this. We look on it as a way of putting back something of what the internet has given to us over the years. ... Nigel” You know, I often criticize the RIPE NCC as whole and the Board particularly... But I must say – RIPE meetings are very useful to learn RIPE NCC people (amongst with many other things). I haven’t discussed a topic with Nigel, but I have to say that he and several other people in the Board do many things for which I can only show respect. Once more – To be so tolerable to so many people with their own opinion (I’m saying about Nigel) – very rare part of a person’s character. Regards, Vladislav
Vladislav On 17/12/11 19:30, Vladislav Potapov wrote:
Nigel” You know, I often criticize the RIPE NCC as whole and the Board particularly... But I must say – RIPE meetings are very useful to learn RIPE NCC people (amongst with many other things). I haven’t discussed a topic with Nigel, but I have to say that he and several other people in the Board do many things for which I can only show respect. Once more – To be so tolerable to so many people with their own opinion (I’m saying about Nigel) – very rare part of a person’s character.
Many thanks for this compliment. We appreciate it very much. Best regards Nigel
On 12/13/2011 11:32 PM, Michał Margula wrote:
W dniu 13.12.2011 20:23, LIR pisze:
I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of that kind.
Anyway, I find this way of calculating is not fair at all, despite of used.
This model does not compute real usage of resources, but penalizes new entries and gives resources for free to old members.
Regards,
Tonino
I can't agree. W got our first resources about 5 years ago. First year we were "EXTRA SMALL", and then every year we are categorized "SMALL", altough we requested some more resources.
And does 500 euro per year really makes any difference? Really?? Let's count IPv4 - you got /21 which is 1024 addresess which makes 50 cents (per year! about 4 cents a month!!) difference.
And about fairness of that calculation - the later you get resources the more are they valuable, and they really are!
This is absolutely correct in case of one-time payment. But membership fee is regular and you are right - resources are valuable. And this should be applied to all members, not to newcomers only.
Regarding the IPv4 fee policy, I am still of the opinion that the more IPv4 address space you use, the more you pay (per IP). Or we would not call it "scarse resource". Just my 2 Euro Cents.
We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small.
I feel quite strange being now classified as small, because we are using the smallest assignment possible (one /21 IPv4, one /32 IPv6, one AS).
I studied the computational algorithm for assigning points, and I feel quite strange points for IPv4 being calculated this way: (first year of allocation LESS 1992) * IPv4 units; in our case, this means => 2011 - 1992 * 1 => 19.
See http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/billing/how-to-calculat... for scoring method.
This means every one asking first block allocation after year 2008 will be classified SMALL, despite of his real dimensions and resources.
This is quite punishing for new comers like us, and not fair at all as a fee computing method. It looks like more we asked far from year 1992, more we have to pay. I don't see really a logic in this method.
Any opinion? Can someone enlight me please?
Antonio Nati
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
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). 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. 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 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:) 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:) Lu On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Paolo Di Francesco < paolo.difrancesco@level7.it> wrote:
Regarding the IPv4 fee policy, I am still of the opinion that the more IPv4 address space you use, the more you pay (per IP).
Or we would not call it "scarse resource".
Just my 2 Euro Cents.
We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small.
I feel quite strange being now classified as small, because we are using the smallest assignment possible (one /21 IPv4, one /32 IPv6, one AS).
I studied the computational algorithm for assigning points, and I feel quite strange points for IPv4 being calculated this way: (first year of allocation LESS 1992) * IPv4 units; in our case, this means => 2011 - 1992 * 1 => 19.
See
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/billing/how-to-calculat...
for scoring method.
This means every one asking first block allocation after year 2008 will be classified SMALL, despite of his real dimensions and resources.
This is quite punishing for new comers like us, and not fair at all as a fee computing method. It looks like more we asked far from year 1992, more we have to pay. I don't see really a logic in this method.
Any opinion? Can someone enlight me please?
Antonio Nati
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
--
Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- 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.
participants (15)
-
Alexander Zubkov -
Carlos Friacas -
Dmitry Samko -
Erik Bais -
Fahad AlShirawi -
hakan hn. nebioglu -
James Blessing -
Jon Morby -
Laurent Seror -
LIR -
Lu Heng -
Manfred F. Schramm -
Michał Margula -
Michel Maggi -
Nigel Titley -
Paolo Di Francesco -
Phil Barton -
Raymond Jetten -
Rob Golding -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
Sven Wiese -
Vladislav Potapov