[members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ROSKOMNADZOR LIMITED
admin at roskomnadzor.io
Tue Apr 16 17:21:28 CEST 2024
Because IPv4 is runout - guess RIPE must prevent future migration of resources out of RIPE region, or at least add some penalty fee - like its currently in AFRINIC. On 16.04.2024 14:40, Petru Bunea wrote: > No, actually RIPE is a hybrid between transalators, lawyers / legal, > technical, accounting, event and PR, running critical infra etc. > And yes, what now can be done with 40mil used to be done with 25 mil in > 2019. Everything got more expensive, get used to it. > > Perhaps RIPE team can adjust here and there, but I honestly don’t see > the budget to be able to drop more than 20%. So the question is where do > we take those 20% from, because if we raise the prices high enough, IPv4 > allocation would migrate to other RIRs, which in turn will mean more > work and on the long run - less income, and after that of course - raise > taxes again. > > Thanks > >> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:33, Daniel Pearson <daniel at privatesystems.net >> <mailto:daniel at privatesystems.net>> wrote: >> >> Everybody is still fighting about the wrong question. >> >> The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 >> million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members. >> >> Sure, the bulk of the expense is due to navigating the legal landscape >> of multiple member nations, but you can't tell me that's 20-30 million >> a year in legal fee's. >> >> >> >> On 4/16/24 9:31 AM, Petru Bunea wrote: >>> Where have I said it should be 1 EUR across the board? >>> >>> It doesn’t have to be 1 EUR, but it also doesn’t have to be 333 the >>> difference. It can be progressively cheaper, but not at such a large >>> difference. >>> >>> Also, FYI, UK Gov or any Gov, could always put back IPv4 if they find >>> it to be too expensive. Just like they force people and companies to >>> put back on the market real estate that have a very high yearly tax. >>> How would that work out for a change? Call this a tax hike on public >>> property, like IP addresses. Maybe they would in fact like it, since >>> it’s their way of doing business. >>> >>> Otherwise, with this model, we will just move the burden from the big >>> ISP/companies/resource holders to the smaller ones. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>>> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:25, Daniel Pearson <daniel at privatesystems.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to >>>> pay 1 Euro per IP for a /8 >>>> >>>> Let me know how that conversation goes :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea wrote: >>>>> This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 >>>>> allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / >>>>> Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 >>>>> IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how >>>>> this is a good example. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>>> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi at kompex.pl> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> very good example Sebastian >>>>>> >>>>>> Others are doing it and Europe should too >>>>>> >>>>>> We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. >>>>>> We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay >>>>>> they need to be calculated >>>>>> >>>>>> But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Pozdrawiam >>>>>> Gabriel Sulka >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX >>>>>> 34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A >>>>>> tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00 >>>>>> www.kompex.pl >>>>>> <http://www.kompex.pl/>;bok at kompex.pl;kompex at nowytarg.net >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of >>>>>> Sebastien Brossier >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM >>>>>> To:members-discuss at ripe.net >>>>>> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 >>>>>> voting >>>>>> options. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *1 - Introduction:* >>>>>> >>>>>> This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not >>>>>> familiar with this, you can see an example here: >>>>>> https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f >>>>>> ees-calculator/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, >>>>>> but not >>>>>> linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much >>>>>> resources. >>>>>> The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are >>>>>> charging, with >>>>>> infinite granularity (no categories). >>>>>> >>>>>> It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain >>>>>> viable when IPv4 has disappeared. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has >>>>>> larger initial allocations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as >>>>>> before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate >>>>>> debate on these subjects at a later time. >>>>>> >>>>>> The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members >>>>>> with a >>>>>> very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain >>>>>> existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain >>>>>> numerous >>>>>> and diverse. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *2 - Charging scheme:* >>>>>> >>>>>> (Warning: math incoming !) >>>>>> >>>>>> IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated >>>>>> (excluding independent assignments and legacy) >>>>>> IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated >>>>>> (excluding independent assignments) >>>>>> >>>>>> Base_Fee = 638 EUR >>>>>> Bit_Factor = 1.31 >>>>>> Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR >>>>>> Offset_IPv4 = 8 >>>>>> Offset_IPv6 = 24 >>>>>> >>>>>> IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) >>>>>> IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6) >>>>>> >>>>>> Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) >>>>>> + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN) >>>>>> >>>>>> My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an >>>>>> average >>>>>> fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it >>>>>> should provide the same budget as the other options. >>>>>> If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can >>>>>> adjust Base_Fee. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *3 - Examples:* >>>>>> >>>>>> 50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees. >>>>>> >>>>>> No allocations: 500 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30:1094 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29:1434 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28:1878 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27:2461 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26:3224 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25:4223 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24:5533 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23:7248 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22:9495 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21:12439 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20:16295 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19:21347 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18:27965 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17:36634 EUR >>>>>> IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16:47991 EUR >>>>>> >>>>>> Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between >>>>>> these numbers. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee >>>>>> schedule of the other RIRs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you if you've read this far. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Sebastien Brossier >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>>>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>>>>> Unsubscribe: >>>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/gabi%40kompex.pl >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>>>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>>>>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>>>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>>> Unsubscribe: >>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40roskomnadzor.io >
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]