Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Hello Simon-Jan, * On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 15:45 +0200, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
The three models all aim to fulfil a budget that is roughly the same as 2023 plus general cost increases including inflation, so EUR 42-45 million. By doing this, we can ensure that we can meet the potential budgetary requirements for 2024 while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contributions should we receive excess funds. The Activity Plan and Budget will be discussed with members this coming Autumn.
The three models are available to review at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
We also provide an updated calculator where members can see for themselves how much they might pay under the draft models:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/new...
To summarise the main features of the three models:
Model A - Category Model
This model has ten categories to provide greater granularity. It also charges separately for independent and legacy resources in exactly the same way as in previous years. Additionally, a separate 50 EUR ASN assignment fee has been added. Both separately charged resources do not contribute to the category scores. This means there is no double charging and no specific charging for transfers or administrative work carried out by the RIPE NCC. There is a New /24 IPv4 administration fee to ensure there is a financial consequence to joining the IPv4 Waiting List. The fee would be payable upon receipt of the /24, and members joining the waiting list who do not have an eligible LIR account, would pay the new LIR sign-up fee to open a new LIR account and join the waiting list.
With this model, approximately 68% of members would pay less than the current annual fee, with the remaining 32% paying more.
The discussion with members helped us to see that a category-based model would receive significant support from members if the version was simplified. Should members see the need to charge for other elements, then that can be incorporated into the category model in the coming years. Any such additional charges could potentially then reduce the fees per category.
Could you please share how many LIRs would enter in each category ? And also, it still seems unfair to me that extra-large LIRs holding millions of IPv4 would pay a few thousand euros. National fixed or mobile internet service provider should be able to handle higher fees. I also feel that IPv6 should be less impacting than IPv4 on category calculation.
Model B - Price increase and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a price increase of EUR 150 and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Model C - Transfer fee and ASN fee
This model is the exact same as in the previous ten years, but there is a charge of EUR 1,000 per transfer to be paid by the receiving party and a 50 EUR ASN fee to ensure we can meet our budgetary requirements while retaining the option for members to redistribute any excess contribution should we receive excess funds.
Further information on the charging scheme models is provided at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/member-and-community-consultations/cha...
The RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that a category-based model is the best option to help address uncertainty that might be caused by consolidation with multiple LIRs and to provide greater flexibility and fairness in how we charge members in the coming years.
Still not understanding why you are introducing an ASN fee. And regarding the transfer fee, I feel that the seller should pay the fee, but not the receiver. Best, Clément Cavadore
Hi Everyone, On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 04:00:29PM +0200, Clement Cavadore wrote:
Hello Simon-Jan, *
On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 15:45 +0200, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
[ ... ] Model A - Category Model
Could you please share how many LIRs would enter in each category ? And also, it still seems unfair to me that extra-large LIRs holding millions of IPv4 would pay a few thousand euros. National fixed or mobile internet service provider should be able to handle higher fees.
I would like to support that comment from Clement, it seems to me that huge players will not get impacted much by this charging plans. As I see it, some small ISPs (let's say with a /19) will get charged a 4th of what an incumbent (3215,3320,3303) would pay for their IPs, as the cap is a /15. I might have missed the reason why the amount of IP doesn't look like it has been considered above this cap, at least for model A. I understand that it's a minority, however they " use " most of the IPs. I think we are missing a point here in the calculation, the ~300 ish LIRs with more than 500k IPs could have a higher fee, I suspect that most of them can easily afford it. Regards, Will van Gulik Nimag Networks
will,
I would like to support that comment from Clement, it seems to me that huge players will not get impacted much by this charging plans. As I see it, some small ISPs (let's say with a /19) will get charged a 4th of what an incumbent (3215,3320,3303) would pay for their IPs, as the cap is a /15.
would finer granularity in the step function, and a much higher top end address this issue sufficiently? randy
Randy, Maybe counting per IP rather than subnet size would be an option for a better granularity, a " simple formula " might do the trick. But a much higher top end is absolutely a need. Will On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 09:38:30AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
will,
I would like to support that comment from Clement, it seems to me that huge players will not get impacted much by this charging plans. As I see it, some small ISPs (let's say with a /19) will get charged a 4th of what an incumbent (3215,3320,3303) would pay for their IPs, as the cap is a /15.
would finer granularity in the step function, and a much higher top end address this issue sufficiently?
randy
hi will,
Maybe counting per IP rather than subnet size would be an option for a better granularity, a " simple formula " might do the trick. But a much higher top end is absolutely a need.
I would like to support that comment from Clement, it seems to me that huge players will not get impacted much by this charging plans. As I see it, some small ISPs (let's say with a /19) will get charged a 4th of what an incumbent (3215,3320,3303) would pay for their IPs, as the cap is a /15.
would finer granularity in the step function, and a much higher top end address this issue sufficiently?
how about something nerdy such as €X per /24 and €Y per /48 ? randy
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023, Will van Gulik wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 04:00:29PM +0200, Clement Cavadore wrote:
On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 15:45 +0200, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote:
[ ... ] Model A - Category Model
Could you please share how many LIRs would enter in each category ? And also, it still seems unfair to me that extra-large LIRs holding millions of IPv4 would pay a few thousand euros. National fixed or mobile internet service provider should be able to handle higher fees.
I would like to support that comment from Clement, it seems to me that huge players will not get impacted much by this charging plans. As I see it, some small ISPs (let's say with a /19) will get charged a 4th of what an incumbent (3215,3320,3303) would pay for their IPs, as the cap is a /15.
I might have missed the reason why the amount of IP doesn't look like it has been considered above this cap, at least for model A. I understand that it's a minority, however they " use " most of the IPs.
I think we are missing a point here in the calculation, the ~300 ish LIRs with more than 500k IPs could have a higher fee, I suspect that most of them can easily afford it.
From my point of view, the RIPE NCC should add more categories and propose higher fees for large members (and then adjust the scale). And the way IPv4 is IMHO capped too early, IPv6 is capped too late (at IPv6 /15 while the largest members have only IPv6 /19, thus no member achieves IPv6 category 9 or 10, most likely for a long time given these members are the actual big
+1 I came to a similar conclusion in my e-mail from 2023-04-17. Capping at /15 with 10k EUR per year is IMHO an incentive by the NCC to large members, and I'm still looking for an explanation. The largest RIPE members, from my understanding, have more than 129 times more IPv4 addresses than category 9 covers, but they would only pay 2k EUR per year more than category 9. players in the RIPE region). Kind regards Robert Scheck -- Robert Scheck Mail: robert.scheck@etes.de ETES GmbH Fon : +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 12 Talstraße 106 Fax : +49 (7 11) 48 90 83 - 50 D-70188 Stuttgart Web : http://www.etes.de/ Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 721182 Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter: Markus Espenhain Sitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart USt.-Id.Nr.: DE814767446
participants (4)
-
Clement Cavadore -
Randy Bush -
Robert Scheck -
Will van Gulik