[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

Hi Nick,

On 9/30/13 10:39 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
[...]
> So how could you convince the existing ipv6 PI holders that the cost
> increase from €50/year to LIR membership fees would be worth it?
>

Actually, the PI holders can not decide anything regarding the charging 
scheme. The LIRs are the ones voting :-)

> IOW, there are two problems here: an addressing flavour issue, which
> relates to the RIPE community, and a billing issue which is the
> responsibility of the RIPE NCC.

the billing issue is the responsibility of the RIPE NCC _members_ :-)

>
> For sure, you couldn't do this to just the ipv6 PI assignments - it would
> have to be to all address space, but then you get into the thorny issue of
> billing.
>

well, that is one thing that I haven't yet thought of. Raising the cost 
for IPv4 PI due to this policy proposal may cause a lot of undesired 
consequences.

> Let me pull out a paper napkin for a moment and hand-wave the possibility
> that all PI holders became LIRs and all LIRs paid the same fees.

ok, let's try this excercise.

> The 2014 budget is €21.7m (practical).  All LIRs pay the same (ncc member policy).

Correct.

> There are about 9500 members and 33000 assigned pi resources (reality),

based on the latest delegated-extended:

28356 IPv4 assignments and 49652 IPv4 assignments+allocations.

Considering that we have 9575 LIRs that means that we have about 2.22 
allocations/LIR.

Taking into consideration the same ratio for IPv4 PI, it means that we 
would probably have in total about 20-22.000 organisations contributing 
to the budget.

> probably with lots of overlap (reasonable speculation).  Let's pluck a
> figure out of thin air and say that there are 35000 distinct end users +
> lirs (wild speculation), who need to pay an equal share of a budget of
> €21.7 million.

That is just a speculation, I think there are less than 25.000 in total. 
We can actually ask the RIPE NCC to provide us with the the exact 
numbers, but let's just speculate now.

> This means you have maybe 25000-30000 organisations around
> the ripe ncc service region who are going to see their fees increase from
> (wholesale) €50 to €650 per annum.

I actually think that we will have somewhere around 50/50. 50% of the 
organisations will see a decrease from 1800 to 8-900€, the rest of the 
50% will see a drastic increase from 50€ to 8-900€ (if we were to level 
it out and each organisation would pay the same amount no matter how 
many resources they would use/request)

>
> This won't fly.  We need to be practical about a workable policy proposal
> here.  Whether we like it or not, there is a strong history of cost
> differentiation in terms of how ip addresess are handled, and I don't see a
> practical way of levelling the field within the constraints of what's
> workable and what we'd ultimately like.

Well, first of all, the ones that get to vote are the LIRs. The LIRs may 
be happy to hear that they will need to pay 800€ (or maybe up to 1000) 
instead of 1800.

Secondly, why wouldn't it fly? We would see an increase in the amount of 
money some organisations (that can not vote) are paying and a decrease 
of money paid by the other organisations - LIRs (that do get to vote).

I think that leveling the price/allocation would be the fairest.. I 
would also advocate for a different scheme as well. LIRs to pay around 
900-1000E (instead of 1800) and the non-LIRs to pay around 400-500E for 
receiving the service of registration (only).

This way, LIRs would still pay a bit more but receive a few extra services.

just an idea.

cheers,
elvis