[members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required

Hello,

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:35:16 +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
> Hello,
> can someone from RIPE NCC provide calculation similat to current
> charging scheme (expected numbers of LIR members per category) and
> number of affected LIRs with the change. I expect these numbers 
> already
> exists in RIPE NCC and these was used for this proposal - there must 
> be
> some source data for selecting member category based on IPv4
> callocations size in presented document. And these data should be
> presented together with this proposar.

+1

> I'm supporting this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation, 
> but
> personally I feel that IPv4 allocations per category should be 
> changed.
> There's disproportion between number of addresses and category -
> organisations holding for example one milion addresses will pay only
> double price, compared to organizations holding 65 thousand 
> addresses,
> even is holding much more of resourcess. In terms of fairness - large
> resource holders are favorized opposed to small ones.  I think,
> allocations per category should be considered to be more fair (that's
> means up to /22 in XXS, /21 in XS, /20-/16 in S, /15-/12 in L
> category... for example). My current feeling from presented model is,
> that many currently small LIRs will fall to medium category, just due 
> to
> this change. And, current minimal allocation for LIR is /21 
> [*ripe509,
> section 5.1] - that means, every new LIR will be automatically in 
> small
> category (and new LIRs will pay more then) - and that's wrong in my 
> eyes.

As Daniel, I like this kind of simplification of LIR size calculation.
But I am XS, and I think I will go Small or Medium... (depending of the 
way it is calculated).

Does the LIR size is calculated according to ripe allocation (e.g. if 
we have a /21 allocated, but on the real life there is only about /23 
used) is based only about what is allocated or just the block given by 
RIPE ?

> Also, current model of 50EUR per independent resource is quite clear 
> I
> think it can remain in the new charging scheme. At least, proposed 
> model
> two, where PI are charged I'm supporting. There should be some
> regulation represented by additional "fee" for PI resources, as these
> are sometimes misused by organisations expected to be a LIR (and
> there're some organisations/LIRs activelly selling PI address space 
> as
> their "service", charging much more [more than double] than they pay 
> for
> the resource in RIPE).

I second that, but other problem is limitation of number of AS. WTF if 
we have 5 AS and one /21 ? Do we go automatically from Small to Medium ?

Since AS _IS_ independent resources, why there is limitation there ?

Kind regards,
Xavier