RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2004
(Articles of Association of 1997)
RIPE NCC
Date: July 2003
Document ID: ripe-t.b.a.
Updates: ripe-255
For 2004 the charging scheme has been revised to align it with membership developments
and to improve the current algorithm for defining member categories.
In the current charging scheme, the categories are based solely on IPv4 allocations
over time. In the Charging Scheme 2004, member categories are based on IPv4,
IPv6 and AS Number allocations over time giving a more fair reflection of the
resources used from the RIPE NCC by each member.
The main changes in the Charging Scheme 2004 include the following:
- Takeover fee for current members who take over other closed members
or who take over allocations from other members
- Revised algorithm to determine the minimum category size for
members
- More transparent determination of borders between categories
The membership charges for 2004 are fixed annual charges and are based on
the member category of a member. For the 2004 membership fees, and for a comparison
with the membership charges since 2000, see the following table:
|
Annual Fees
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
|
Small
|
2,400
|
2,100
|
1,800
|
2,750
|
2,450
|
|
Medium
|
3,350
|
2,950
|
2,500
|
3,750
|
3,350
|
|
Large
|
4,400
|
3,900
|
3,400
|
5,250
|
4,650
|
|
Start-up fee
|
2,100
|
2,100
|
2,100
|
2,500
|
2,500
|
|
Take over fee
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1,250
|
Note: For all tables the figures for Small members include
Enterprise members. Supernational members are not mentioned above because
their fees are established on an individual basis based on the fee for
Large members.
Membership development
Following the analysis of the growth so far in 2003, an increase in net membership
is expected of approximately 6% over the year 2003. Taking into account expected
member closures and a decline in the growth for 2004 of new members, a net
growth of 4% is expected in 2004.
The membership figures for 2000, 2001, 2002 and the projections for the remainder
of 2003 and the year 2004 are as follows:
|
Number of LIRs
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
Projection 2003
|
Budget 2004
|
|
Small
|
1,978
|
2,536
|
2,503
|
2,727
|
2,718
|
|
Medium
|
459
|
441
|
614
|
612
|
725
|
|
Large
|
130
|
145
|
152
|
152
|
181
|
|
Total membership
|
2,567
|
3,122
|
3,269
|
3,491
|
3,624
|
|
Net Growth %
|
51%
|
22%
|
5%
|
6%
|
4%
|
Member score algorithm
To determine the member category for a member, a score is calculated on the
basis of the resources allocated to the member over time. The scoring system
is based on member resource allocations/assignments taking into account both
IPv4 and IPv6 allocations as well as AS Number assignments. For the purpose
of this scoring algorithm, an allocation of IPv4 /20 is deemed to be equivalent
to one IPv6 /32 allocation or to an assignment of one AS Number. For an example
of how scoring units are determined based on resource usage see the table below.
|
Prefix IPv4
|
Prefix IPv6
|
ASN
|
Scoring unit
|
|
IPv4 / 21 ≙
|
IPv6 / 33 ≙
|
|
0.5
|
|
IPv4 / 20 ≙
|
IPv6 / 32 ≙
|
1 ASN ≙
|
1
|
|
IPv4 / 19 ≙
|
IPv6 / 31 ≙
|
2 ASN ≙
|
2
|
|
IPv4 / 18 ≙
|
IPv6 / 30 ≙
|
4 ASN ≙
|
4
|
Note: To establish scoring units based on larger or smaller
resource usage, the same principles apply.
Using this matching system, the following algorithm is run to determine the
total score per member:
ai = Scoring unit
ti = Time function of allocation/assignment i ( year of allocation – 1992
)
N = Number of allocations/assignments
The total score per member is the sum of all allocation scores
for that member with a time factor applied to give more weight to recent
allocations. Thus, the relative weight of a given allocation decreases
over time.
Starting from the lowest score, all members are ranked in order depending
on their score. Members with the same scores get identical rankings. The
member categories are defined using the following cumulative boundaries:
- 75% of the members will make up the Small member category
- 95% of the members will make up the Medium and Small
member categories
- The remaining members will make up the Large member category
Note: These boundaries cannot be fixed precisely
as it may occur that a set of members with the same score fall across
the boundary between member
categories. When this happens the boundary will be moved to the nearest
point below, which means that the actual percentage will deviate slightly
and the next member category will start from that level.
Maximum percentage of total members per category
|
Member Category
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
July 2003
|
Cumulative % 2004
|
|
Small
|
77 %
|
81 %
|
77 %
|
78 %
|
75 %
|
|
Medium
|
18 %
|
14 %
|
19 %
|
18 %
|
95 %
|
|
Large
|
5 %
|
5 %
|
4 %
|
4 %
|
100 %
|
The scores for members will be determined on 30 September 2003. The member
categories will be made publicly available and every individual member
will be notified of their member score and member category by e-mail.
Change Matrix - expected changes of members between the member categories
|
|
Small
|
Medium
|
Large
|
|
Small
|
96 %
|
4 %
|
0 %
|
|
Medium
|
11 %
|
86 %
|
3 %
|
|
Large
|
0 %
|
9 %
|
91 %
|
Note: Enterprise members remain in the small member
category.
|