RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
don't get me wrong, they're perfectly free to run whatever the fuck they want over -their- networks, and sell it to their customers, just that they should not complain if all of a sudden, facebook, google, porn, and the piratebay etc are no longer on their part of the internet *grin* -- 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 Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote:
The problem is, big players have lots of IPv4 addresses so they don't care about switching to dual-stack or IPv6. Small LIRs have small networks but nobody cares about their opinion:)
Probably charging more $$ to big players will push them to release not-in-use IPv4 or switch to IPv6
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:14 PM To: Redi Tela Cc: 'Brandon Butterworth'; jblessing@llnw.com; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
there comes a time where you have to ask: are you running a business, or a museum :P keeping ipv4 around just for old times sake... oh well..
-- 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 Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet.
those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really.
eyeballs -> few well known sites
and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, or die.
and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if you consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;)
we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing models ;), get over it.
-- 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 Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote:
Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a few 'well-known' sites.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM To: jblessing@llnw.com; sven@cb3rob.net Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers filter it.
Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you eloquently explained previously)
furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated
No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer.
v6 or die.
don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they don't announce a single ip out of it :P
You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point you see.
Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history now.
brandon
---- 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.
---- 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.
Hi Sven, Although your points about the future of IPv4 is not under debate, IPv4 will be here for the next 2 years. And that is also what the topic is about, a charging scheme for 2012, providing a re-presentable way of charging for a LIR membership. What I read in the discussion is that we are looking for a way that is easy to understand and provides a way to cover the services provided by RIPE NCC and preferred in a way that is representation by the time used by a LIR to the resources used from RIPE. (human and/or IP resources). Stating that managing a database shouldn't cost X when running it for 7750 LIR's doesn't cut it, as RIPE NCC does much more than most of us use or see. Think about organizing the LIR trainings, IPv6 trainings, RIPE meetings, attending IETF or other RIR meetings, development of statistical information systems about Internet Health, the usage of BGP or prefixes etc. One could argue if some of those should be paid in another way than the current membership fees, however each of them are agreed upon by the members that actually attend the RIPE meetings in the RIPE NCC Activity Plan. So the big question for me atm is : Would one like to see a fee structure (for 2012) based on a simple budget (roughly 17.5 milj. Euro ) for 2012 divided by $number_of_members ( 7745 ) or are we going to look into current actual usage of resources. The easiest thing is to charge every member 2250 Euro yearly and be done with this whole discussion. Yes some LIR members don't have any interaction with RIPE or their provided services and having a single membership fee (not looking at used resources) might be more expensive for some (specifically smaller LIR's and new entrants.), but dealing with a creative fee structure also costs money. If you would look closer into the actual financial statement you would get a pretty good idea which services are provided and what the overall cost is. For instance, the cost of RIPE LIR trainings should be covered by the setup of a new LIR imho (and maxed to 2 free seats). Currently there is no additional charge for extra seats or re-visiting of a training. I personally think that training should not be free as free doesn't give the perception of value. Free doesn't work IMHO. To give an idea, the current budget for 2011 for training services is 383.000 Euro. The training department (I know quite a lot of them personally and love them all to bits) does a hell of a job, flying all over the region, creating the content AND delivering the content (spreading the word ..) but if a LIR has a high change rate of their people, they could just send people each time, with no extra cost. Define fair to me please ... The yearly cost for the RIPE meetings is about 850k Euro. The actual income for RIPE meetings is about 250k Euro, a loss per year of 600k Euro. Yes, even if you don't attend the RIPE meeting, your membership fee still pays 80 euro per LIR per year to cover the cost. The big question might be, should the RIPE membership fee pay to cover the RIPE meetings as it is not exclusive for RIPE members. If the answer yes, in that case one should also not complain that cost are made for things they don't use and that it is not fair that others have more IP's than they have and that they need to pay roughly 2250 euro yearly to cover all operating cost. 2250 euro yearly is 187,50 euro a month ... or 6.25 euro a day .. ( 6 euro 25 is roughly the same as I spend per day on smoking ... ) Regards, Erik Bais
a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, be preferred over more complex methods. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Erik Bais wrote:
Hi Sven,
Although your points about the future of IPv4 is not under debate, IPv4 will be here for the next 2 years.
And that is also what the topic is about, a charging scheme for 2012, providing a re-presentable way of charging for a LIR membership. What I read in the discussion is that we are looking for a way that is easy to understand and provides a way to cover the services provided by RIPE NCC and preferred in a way that is representation by the time used by a LIR to the resources used from RIPE. (human and/or IP resources).
Stating that managing a database shouldn't cost X when running it for 7750 LIR's doesn't cut it, as RIPE NCC does much more than most of us use or see. Think about organizing the LIR trainings, IPv6 trainings, RIPE meetings, attending IETF or other RIR meetings, development of statistical information systems about Internet Health, the usage of BGP or prefixes etc.
One could argue if some of those should be paid in another way than the current membership fees, however each of them are agreed upon by the members that actually attend the RIPE meetings in the RIPE NCC Activity Plan.
So the big question for me atm is :
Would one like to see a fee structure (for 2012) based on a simple budget (roughly 17.5 milj. Euro ) for 2012 divided by $number_of_members ( 7745 ) or are we going to look into current actual usage of resources. The easiest thing is to charge every member 2250 Euro yearly and be done with this whole discussion.
Yes some LIR members don't have any interaction with RIPE or their provided services and having a single membership fee (not looking at used resources) might be more expensive for some (specifically smaller LIR's and new entrants.), but dealing with a creative fee structure also costs money.
If you would look closer into the actual financial statement you would get a pretty good idea which services are provided and what the overall cost is.
For instance, the cost of RIPE LIR trainings should be covered by the setup of a new LIR imho (and maxed to 2 free seats). Currently there is no additional charge for extra seats or re-visiting of a training. I personally think that training should not be free as free doesn't give the perception of value. Free doesn't work IMHO. To give an idea, the current budget for 2011 for training services is 383.000 Euro. The training department (I know quite a lot of them personally and love them all to bits) does a hell of a job, flying all over the region, creating the content AND delivering the content (spreading the word ..) but if a LIR has a high change rate of their people, they could just send people each time, with no extra cost. Define fair to me please ...
The yearly cost for the RIPE meetings is about 850k Euro. The actual income for RIPE meetings is about 250k Euro, a loss per year of 600k Euro. Yes, even if you don't attend the RIPE meeting, your membership fee still pays 80 euro per LIR per year to cover the cost. The big question might be, should the RIPE membership fee pay to cover the RIPE meetings as it is not exclusive for RIPE members. If the answer yes, in that case one should also not complain that cost are made for things they don't use and that it is not fair that others have more IP's than they have and that they need to pay roughly 2250 euro yearly to cover all operating cost.
2250 euro yearly is 187,50 euro a month ... or 6.25 euro a day .. ( 6 euro 25 is roughly the same as I spend per day on smoking ... )
Regards, Erik Bais
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear members-discuss list, may I ask you fill out this survey? Important: This survey IS NOT official, nor is it related to RIPE. It's just the private survey of a member to find out, if there is need to change the billing scheme. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FGKJBQJ (Deadline: 21.8.2011) Purpose is: - to find out, if there is sufficient interest in this issue among the members - to get an indication, what new scheme should include We will publish the result in this list. The LIR id and the email will kept secret, neither one will ever be made public or used for purposes beyond this "RIPE Billing Scheme" discussion. LIR id and email are optional, anyways.. We are a state funded school network with no commercial activity, so maybe we can win your trust to provide this information. I would be very grateful if you could spare some time to do the survey. It consists of 16 question, you should not need more than 5 minutes to complete it. Best regards, Christian Wittenhorst ch.ksz
Good job Christian, looking forward to see the result in the list. Regards, Arash Naderpour Parsun Network Solutions -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 12:58 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] SURVEY - Charging Scheme Dear members-discuss list, may I ask you fill out this survey? Important: This survey IS NOT official, nor is it related to RIPE. It's just the private survey of a member to find out, if there is need to change the billing scheme. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FGKJBQJ (Deadline: 21.8.2011) Purpose is: - to find out, if there is sufficient interest in this issue among the members - to get an indication, what new scheme should include We will publish the result in this list. The LIR id and the email will kept secret, neither one will ever be made public or used for purposes beyond this "RIPE Billing Scheme" discussion. LIR id and email are optional, anyways.. We are a state funded school network with no commercial activity, so maybe we can win your trust to provide this information. I would be very grateful if you could spare some time to do the survey. It consists of 16 question, you should not need more than 5 minutes to complete it. Best regards, Christian Wittenhorst ch.ksz ---- 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.
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM
a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, be preferred over more complex methods.
I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment. The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies. 0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. -Florian
I fully support that the price per IPv4 should be "the more you ask, the more Euro/IP you pay" That should boost the IPv6 development: 1) large system will move towards IPv6 2) content (which is available more on large networks than in small system) will be available under IPv6 and that will also boost small system to move toward IPv6 Thank you
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM
a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, be preferred over more complex methods.
I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses.
As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment.
The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies.
0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment.
-Florian
!��'����+yǢ��j)l~�&�� � )�����جr�,����x%��i��zZ �{hʋ�,�O��Z�� ���jw`��-�� ��ږ��zm����*颻Z���zw���z�����)brJ'ح�"�Ej)l�w^�+����m�Lj)b������z������]��ޚ��i�kz� s===
-- 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
Pro or anti ipv6, it is surely not the job of RIPE to force its members to do anything they do not want to do by punative pricing. The job of RIPE is to serve its members. Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are private and confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the named addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not read, copy or use the information contained in any way. If you receive this email or any attachments in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and destroy any copy you have of it. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damages whatsoever arising in any way from receipt or use of this e-mail or any attachments. This e-mail is not intended to create legally binding commitments on our behalf, nor do its comments reflect our corporate views or policies. Net Solutions Europe Ltd Registered Office: Baxter House, 48 Church Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8RR Registered in England No. 03203624. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster Sent: 08 August 2011 2:10 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis Subject: RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM
a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, be preferred over more complex methods.
I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment. The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies. 0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. -Florian !����'����+yǢ��j)l~�&�� � )�����جr�,����x%��i��zZ �{hʋ�,�O��Z�� ���jw`��-�� ��ږ��zm����*颻Z���zw�� �z������)brJ'ح�"�Ej)l�w^�+����m�Lj)b������z������]��ޚ��i�kz�
Let me describe the situation from my point of view. I think that it is not LARGE members who must be putting forward to deploy IPv6, but exactly a MEDIUM/SMALL. Assuming LARGE members as a (mostly) IP transit operators and M/S as a broadband access, we get an exactly "IPv6 chicken-and-the-egg" problem. In our region, we have enough IPv6 transit operators (most of whom are LARGE), but *no* broadband access IPv6 providers. As I see, providing pure IPv6 transit is much more easy/cheap than deploying broadband access IPv6 networks - and that's the main issue. Well, if we will reduce IPv4 cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be empty pipes and no content. Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - I consider wiwi model/proposal as fair, but I don't think it could be an elixir for IPv6 development. It is the shortage of IPv4 space that will be the reason, not the "price of IPv4" (and the IPv4 black markets, if any, will regulate themselves). -- Best regards, Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster <hostmaster@degnet-gmbh.de> To: members-discuss@ripe.net Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM
a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, be preferred over more complex methods.
I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses.
As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment.
The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies.
0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment.
-Florian
!��'����+yǢ��j)l~�&�� � )�����جr�,����x%��i��zZ �{hʋ�,�O��Z�� ���jw`��-�� ��ږ��zm����*颻Z���zw���z�����)brJ'ح�"�Ej)l�w^�+����m�Lj)b������z������]��ޚ��i�kz� s===
Well, if we will reduce IPv4 cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be empty pipes and no content. You can't popularize IPv6 by volitional action. It's the wrong way. The broadband operators bear much more expenses than transit operators (and
Ivan M Makarenko wrote: there's no no contradiction here with your letter). And even when you understand that the broadband operators bear much more expenses you still call comunity to increase their expences for IPv4 resources?? In this case the only goal for for increasing expences for IPv4 resources may be the removal of competitors: expenses will be raised for SMALL/MEDIUM but be decreased for the LARGE. It's not the way IPv6 deployment should go. And many of members try to pay attention for this (but I think they have no chance to affect on this because we have (and had, and will have) a lobby of LAGRE's)
Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - But the acts are opposite with the words
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster <hostmaster@degnet-gmbh.de> To: members-discuss@ripe.net Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM
a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, be preferred over more complex methods.
I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses.
As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment.
The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies.
0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment.
-Florian
!��'����+yǢ��j)l~�&�� � )�����جr�,����x%��i��zZ �{hʋ�,�O��Z�� ���jw`��-�� ��ږ��zm����* 颻Z���zw���z�����)brJ'ح�"�Ej) l�w^�+����m�Lj)b������z������]��ޚ��i�kz� s===
---- 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.
-- Best wishes, Andrey Semenchuk Trifle Internet Service Provider (056) 731-99-11 www.trifle.net
Andrey, I am not about increasing expenses for IPv4 holders (M/S). I am not about decreasing expenses for L. I'm just trying to say that I don't believe that any attempts for "IPv6 stimulation" by means of *charging scheme* could be successful. IP transit operators can easily implement IPv6 (because they are "ready") almost right now, but broadband providers will deploy IPv6 according to their internal processes of access network upgrade and billing upgrade (much slower and more expensive). Aren't we say the same things? Okay, I'll say it in other words. If our company were not already being deploy IPv6 on transit and access levels, will we start to look into IPv6 because IPv4 doubles(triples) in price? Well, no. Price is not a point at all, it's irrelevant. The point is *shortage*, and that's my only idea for this messages. Again, the only thing I was talking about is IPv6 deployment stimulus in the context of the charging scheme. But for now, I this idea should be considered off-topic here. Thanks. -- Best regards, Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme From: Andrey Semenchuk <andrey@trifle.net> To: Ivan M Makarenko <I.Makarenko@zsttk.ru> Date: Tue Aug 09 2011 13:31:42 GMT+0700
Well, if we will reduce IPv4 cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be empty pipes and no content. You can't popularize IPv6 by volitional action. It's the wrong way. The broadband operators bear much more expenses than transit operators (and
Ivan M Makarenko wrote: there's no no contradiction here with your letter). And even when you understand that the broadband operators bear much more expenses you still call comunity to increase their expences for IPv4 resources??
In this case the only goal for for increasing expences for IPv4 resources may be the removal of competitors: expenses will be raised for SMALL/MEDIUM but be decreased for the LARGE. It's not the way IPv6 deployment should go. And many of members try to pay attention for this (but I think they have no chance to affect on this because we have (and had, and will have) a lobby of LAGRE's)
Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - But the acts are opposite with the words
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster <hostmaster@degnet-gmbh.de> To: members-discuss@ripe.net Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM
a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, be preferred over more complex methods.
I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses.
As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment.
The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies.
0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment.
-Florian
!��'����+yǢ��j)l~�&�� � )�����جr�,����x%��i��zZ �{hʋ�,�O��Z�� ���jw`��-�� ��ږ��zm����* 颻Z���zw���z�����)brJ'ح�"�Ej) l�w^�+����m�Lj)b������z������]��ޚ��i�kz� s===
---- 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 two FACTS that we should keep in mind separately: a) the fact that we need an IPv6 migration path (and good motivation) for large systems b) the fact that IPv4 is a scarse resource Regarding b) to me it sounds normal and logical that, for scarse resources, the more you request the more you pay. If we have a cake with 8 slices and 8 kids (poor and rich ones) we cannot decide that if one kid gets the whole cake he will pay LESS.... The more you request, the more you will pay. Regarding point a), I am still curious to know why large ISP did not migrate towards IPv6. Usually when asked about it in the past, the answer I have heard was "we have no reason to move toward IPv6, commercially speaking we have no reason to do it..." Just to give you an idea, 2 years ago (not sure about now), the peering situation in Italy was that small and medium ISPs were doing native IPv6 peering while large ones were not supporting IPv6 or doing it via tunnels. Considering that most of the content stays on the large ISP (p2p and other content (NOTE1) ) even if a small/medium ISP migrates its customers towards IPv6, it will be useless 95% of the content will still be on the IPv4 word. (NOTE1) 1) large providers have many customers, and many customers means a lot of national p2p traffic. In regions where English is not the national language, the p2p content is "localized with the national language" and that means that the p2p traffic stays on the national network. 2) large providers are also content providers: email, VoD, etc is running on their network.
Let me describe the situation from my point of view.
I think that it is not LARGE members who must be putting forward to deploy IPv6, but exactly a MEDIUM/SMALL. Assuming LARGE members as a (mostly) IP transit operators and M/S as a broadband access, we get an exactly "IPv6 chicken-and-the-egg" problem. In our region, we have enough IPv6 transit operators (most of whom are LARGE), but *no* broadband access IPv6 providers. As I see, providing pure IPv6 transit is much more easy/cheap than deploying broadband access IPv6 networks - and that's the main issue. Well, if we will reduce IPv4 cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be empty pipes and no content.
Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - I consider wiwi model/proposal as fair, but I don't think it could be an elixir for IPv6 development. It is the shortage of IPv4 space that will be the reason, not the "price of IPv4" (and the IPv4 black markets, if any, will regulate themselves).
-- Best regards, Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster <hostmaster@degnet-gmbh.de> To: members-discuss@ripe.net Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM
a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, be preferred over more complex methods.
I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses.
As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment.
The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies.
0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment.
-Florian
!��'����+yǢ��j)l~�&�� � )�����جr�,����x%��i��zZ �{hʋ�,�O��Z�� ���jw`��-�� ��ږ��z m����*颻Z���zw���z�����)brJ'ح�"�Ej)l�w^�+����m�Lj)b������z���� ��]��ޚ��i�kz� s===
---- 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
For what it's worth... some extra information about IPv6 deployment levels: On 8/9/11 3:48 AM, Ivan M Makarenko wrote:
Let me describe the situation from my point of view.
I think that it is not LARGE members who must be putting forward to deploy IPv6, but exactly a MEDIUM/SMALL.
We did analysis of "IPv6 Ripeness" in June last year, and Emile Aben published the results in an article on Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/content-ipv6-ripeness-sequel First graph confirms Ivan's opinion: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/images/userfiles-image-v6ripeness-v6-... Our of 62 members on "extra large" billing category, 80% had v6 space, and 40% had all "4 stars" on IPv6 Ripeness; "large" are also above the average/median. You can see that the hight of relative IPv6 Ripeness levels are directly proportional to the category size. Regards, Vesna Manojlovic, RIPE NCC
Assuming LARGE members as a (mostly) IP transit operators and M/S as a broadband access, we get an exactly "IPv6 chicken-and-the-egg" problem. In our region, we have enough IPv6 transit operators (most of whom are LARGE), but *no* broadband access IPv6 providers. As I see, providing pure IPv6 transit is much more easy/cheap than deploying broadband access IPv6 networks - and that's the main issue. Well, if we will reduce IPv4 cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be empty pipes and no content.
Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - I consider wiwi model/proposal as fair, but I don't think it could be an elixir for IPv6 development. It is the shortage of IPv4 space that will be the reason, not the "price of IPv4" (and the IPv4 black markets, if any, will regulate themselves).
-- Best regards, Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia
participants (10)
-
Andrey Semenchuk -
Arash Naderpour -
Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst -
DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster -
Erik Bais -
Ivan M Makarenko -
Paolo Di Francesco -
Simon Talbot -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
Vesna Manojlovic