From noreply at ripe.net Mon Aug 1 17:17:24 2011 From: noreply at ripe.net (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:17:24 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required Message-ID: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on 2 November 2011. The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models before deciding on a final version to present at the GM. The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' features and differences, are presented at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-new-charging-scheme-2012 The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by sending an email directly to agm at ripe.net. After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it will present to the membership at the GM. If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the members-discuss at ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can be found online at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-lists We look forward to hearing your comments. Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman From danny at danysek.cz Mon Aug 1 22:35:16 2011 From: danny at danysek.cz (Daniel Suchy) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:35:16 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required In-Reply-To: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> References: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> 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. 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. 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). With regards, Daniel On 08/01/2011 05:17 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the > membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on > 2 November 2011. > > The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on > various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would > like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models > before deciding on a final version to present at the GM. > > The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational > principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' > features and differences, are presented at: > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-new-charging-scheme-2012 > > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed > models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by > sending an email directly to agm at ripe.net. > > After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed > Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it > will present to the membership at the GM. > > If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with > other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the > members-discuss at ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can > be found online at: > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-lists > > > We look forward to hearing your comments. > > Regards, > > Nigel Titley > RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman > From medler at optimate-server.de Tue Aug 2 02:11:07 2011 From: medler at optimate-server.de (Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de)) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 02:11:07 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Message-ID: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> Hello member, my LIR has 2x/18, 1x/19, 1x/17 PA-Allocation. When I look right my membership category will be size L. I have to pay 5000 Euro a year, because I have one /19 over /16. I think the price step from category M to category L is to big. 2500Eur -> 5000Eur You should add a category between M and L. It should have this requirements: IPv4: >/16, <=/14 price should be 3500 Euro every year Its not fair, that I have to pay 5000 Euro, instead 2500 Euro, only I have one /19 to much to met requirements for category M! -- Regards, Marcel Edler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pkambach at kambach.net Tue Aug 2 10:22:11 2011 From: pkambach at kambach.net (Patrick Kambach) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:22:11 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi Marcel, I have a "bad feeling" about the new charing scheme. 1) as Daniel already wrote and you also mentioned: it looks like nearly ever LIR will have to pay more for the same resources. 2) if I understood correctly "All contracts for any RIPE NCC products or services will be between the RIPE NCC and a member. This means that Direct Assignment Users and other separate service contract holders, such as DNSMON subscribers, must be a RIPE NCC member" the current "sponsoring" of pi-space by a LIR is not possible any more. So we lose min. 10 customers having this service. 3) if 2) is right, the RIPE will have to get more stuff for all the small /24 pi-space members For me it's just "making money"; but the RIPE has enough, so why?! It's nice that they say it's making everything easier, but I guess it's making everything more complex and for all the LIR... will the RIPE pay for the customers I lost when they become members? The RIPE should fix open topics like asused for ipv6 first and try to save money before they start asking for more. Br, Patrick Am 02.08.2011 02:11, schrieb Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de): > Hello member, > > my LIR has 2x/18, 1x/19, 1x/17 PA-Allocation. When I look right my > membership category will be size L. I have to pay 5000 Euro a year, > because I have one /19 over /16. I think the price step from category > M to category L is to big. 2500Eur -> 5000Eur You should add a > category between M and L. It should have this requirements: IPv4: > >/16, <=/14 price should be 3500 Euro every year > > Its not fair, that I have to pay 5000 Euro, instead 2500 Euro, only I > have one /19 to much to met requirements for category M! > > -- Regards, Marcel Edler > > - -- ConnectingBytes GmbH - "www.kambach.net" | In der Steele 35, 40599 D?sseldorf, Germany | Telefon: 0800 / 900 2580 - 1, Fax: 0800 / 900 2580 - 2 | Email: pkambach at kambach.net | Web: http://www.kambach.net | | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Patrick Kambach | Amtsgericht D?sseldorf, HRB 60009 | Ust-IdNr.: DE815028832, Steuernummer: 106/5736/0037 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk43s7MACgkQCIR+kawbQF1hHgCfTMqwCA5P3rpQOkkStnbEZZHa CeIAoPbPr+vqwp2r/cDPBNFQgS2dOrze =yaI4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From heidenreich at sasg.de Tue Aug 2 10:17:23 2011 From: heidenreich at sasg.de (Peter Heidenreich) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:17:23 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E37B293.5090901@sasg.de> Hello, we have the same situation and i still wrote an email to agm at ripe.net. We currently have a /20 and two /21. We are in the billing category "small". With the new charging scheme we are in the category "M" and we have to pay 2.500 EUR per year. Actually we pay 1.600 EUR per year. I think also that it is not fair that we should pay 900,- more without any benefit! Am 02.08.2011 02:11, schrieb Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de): > Hello member, > > my LIR has 2x/18, 1x/19, 1x/17 PA-Allocation. > When I look right my membership category will be size L. > I have to pay 5000 Euro a year, because I have one /19 over /16. > I think the price step from category M to category L is to big. 2500Eur > -> 5000Eur > You should add a category between M and L. > It should have this requirements: > IPv4: >/16, <=/14 > price should be 3500 Euro every year > > Its not fair, that I have to pay 5000 Euro, instead 2500 Euro, only I have > one /19 to much to met requirements for category M! > > -- > Regards, > Marcel Edler > > -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en Peter Heidenreich SaSG GmbH & Co. KG Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Tel.: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 11 Fax: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 29 eMail: heidenreich at sasg.de Web: www.sasg.de Vertretungsberechtigter Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht M?nchen Handelsregister A (HRA) 90030 Pers?nlich haftender Gesellschafter: SaSG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Vertretungsberechtigter Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht M?nchen Handelsregister B (HRB) 167324 Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer gem?? ? 27a Umsatzsteuergesetz: DE 254 728 254 Steuernummer: 161/174/14705 Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG ist nach ? 6 Telekommunikationsgesetz (TKG) gemeldet. Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG unterliegt somit der Aufsicht der: Bundesnetzagentur f?r Elektrizit?t, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Tulpenfeld 4, D - 53113 Bonn Diese eMail inklusive aller Anlagen ist ausschlie?lich f?r den Adressaten bestimmt und enth?lt m?glicherweise vertrauliche Informationen. Falls der Empf?nger dieser Nachricht nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat oder ein f?r den Mail-Zugang zust?ndiger Mitarbeiter oder Vertreter ist, werden Sie hiermit darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass jede Weitergabe, Verteilung, Vervielf?ltigung oder sonstige Nutzung dieser Nachricht oder ihrer Anlagen verboten ist. Wenn Sie diese Nachricht aus Versehen erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte den Absender per eMail und l?schen Sie diese eMail aus Ihrem Computer. Bitte beachten Sie, dass eMail-Eing?nge an die pers?nliche eMail-Adresse des Empf?ngers mitunter nicht t?glich kontrolliert werden und daher eMails f?r fristgebundene Inhalte nicht geeignet sind! This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and please delete it from your computer. Please note that e-mails to the personal e-mail-address of the receiver of this mail may not be checked on a daily basis and are, therefore, inappropriate for matters subject to a deadline! From prandini at spe.net Tue Aug 2 10:48:45 2011 From: prandini at spe.net (Paolo Prandini) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:48:45 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> Message-ID: <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> I agree with the options expressed in this thread. It doesn't make sense to have XXS and XS categories with smaller than /21 where according to the current rules you can't get anything smaller than /21. Then I believe that the requirement that PI users must be RIPE NCC members is big problem. As an example, we allocated PI space to Italian public administration entities that cannot be members of anything if there is no law allowing them to do so. In this case how can they keep their allocation? Then: we won a 36 months contract with them with strict rules and if we change anything the contract will be cancelled with a penalty; we could not choose the rules because they are fixed with a law. In this case, will the RIPE refund us the damages? What if the public administration sues us for the lost PI allocation damages? I think that changes that have not only a financial impact but also a legal one ( like the one forcing an allocation to be made only to a member ) should apply only to new allocations and not to the existing ones. Otherwise the RIPE will face lots of legal expenses! Il 02/08/2011 10.22, Patrick Kambach ha scritto: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > hi Marcel, > > I have a "bad feeling" about the new charing scheme. > > 1) as Daniel already wrote and you also mentioned: it looks like nearly > ever LIR will have to pay more for the same resources. > 2) if I understood correctly > > "All contracts for any RIPE NCC products or services will be between the > RIPE NCC and a member. This means that Direct Assignment Users and other > separate service contract holders, such as DNSMON subscribers, must be a > RIPE NCC member" > > the current "sponsoring" of pi-space by a LIR is not possible any more. > So we lose min. 10 customers having this service. > > 3) if 2) is right, the RIPE will have to get more stuff for all the > small /24 pi-space members > > For me it's just "making money"; but the RIPE has enough, so why?! > > It's nice that they say it's making everything easier, but I guess it's > making everything more complex and for all the LIR... will the RIPE pay > for the customers I lost when they become members? > > The RIPE should fix open topics like asused for ipv6 first and try to > save money before they start asking for more. > > Br, > Patrick > > > > > Am 02.08.2011 02:11, schrieb Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de): >> Hello member, >> >> my LIR has 2x/18, 1x/19, 1x/17 PA-Allocation. When I look right my >> membership category will be size L. I have to pay 5000 Euro a year, >> because I have one /19 over /16. I think the price step from category >> M to category L is to big. 2500Eur -> 5000Eur You should add a >> category between M and L. It should have this requirements: IPv4: >>> /16,<=/14 price should be 3500 Euro every year >> >> Its not fair, that I have to pay 5000 Euro, instead 2500 Euro, only I >> have one /19 to much to met requirements for category M! >> >> -- Regards, Marcel Edler >> >> > > - -- > ConnectingBytes GmbH - "www.kambach.net" > | In der Steele 35, 40599 D?sseldorf, Germany > | Telefon: 0800 / 900 2580 - 1, Fax: 0800 / 900 2580 - 2 > | Email: pkambach at kambach.net > | Web: http://www.kambach.net > | > | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Patrick Kambach > | Amtsgericht D?sseldorf, HRB 60009 > | Ust-IdNr.: DE815028832, Steuernummer: 106/5736/0037 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAk43s7MACgkQCIR+kawbQF1hHgCfTMqwCA5P3rpQOkkStnbEZZHa > CeIAoPbPr+vqwp2r/cDPBNFQgS2dOrze > =yaI4 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Dr.Ing.Paolo Prandini Dr.Paolo Prandini Rottendorfer Str. 1 A-9560 Lindl Austria Telefon +43 (0)42765105 Fax +43 (0)427637590 S.P.E.Sistemi e Progetti Elettronici s.a.s. Via Liguria 5 I-25125 Brescia Italia Telefono +39 0302427266 Fax +39 02700406565 Email prandini at spe.net Web http://www.spe.net CA https://ra.spe.net/pub/cacert/cacert.crt ------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. Persons receiving this e-mail message who are not the named addressee (or his/her co-workers, or persons authorized to take delivery) must not use, forward or reproduce its contents. If you have received this e-mail message by mistake, please contact us immediately and delete this e-mail message beyond retrieval. Die Information dieses e-Mails ist vertraulich und ausschliesslich fuer den Adressaten bestimmt. Der Empfanger dieses e-Mails, der nicht der Adressat ist, (sowie einer seiner Mitarbeiter oder seiner Empfangsberechtigter), darf den Inhalt nicht verwenden, weitergeben oder reproduzieren. Sollten Sie dieses e-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie uns bitte unverzueglich und loeschen Sie das e-Mail unwiederbringlich. Questo messaggio contiene informazioni riservate e confidenziali. Se non siete i destinatari del messaggio (o se avete ricevuto il messaggio per errore) Vi preghiamo di darcene immediata comunicazione ritornandoci il messaggio stesso. Qualsiasi copia, riproduzione in genere, uso o distribuzione del materiale contenuto o allegato al presente messaggio ? severamente proibito. From kiwi at kazar.net Tue Aug 2 10:58:25 2011 From: kiwi at kazar.net (Xavier Beaudouin) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:58:25 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required In-Reply-To: <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> References: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> Message-ID: <78fad2d65fb8c74ae2b5c3e56090e030@kazar.net> 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 From rhe at nosc.ja.net Tue Aug 2 12:05:51 2011 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:05:51 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> Message-ID: <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> Paolo, Patrick, I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the RIPE NCC? It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? What prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?" Best, Rob From pkambach at kambach.net Tue Aug 2 12:35:02 2011 From: pkambach at kambach.net (Patrick Kambach) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:35:02 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <4E37D2D6.3000200@kambach.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi Rob, I'm not sure, I'm asking ;) My customers have contracts with me; the contracts are ripe-conform, but they have no paperwork signed from the ripe. Br, Patrick Am 02.08.2011 12:05, schrieb Rob Evans: > Paolo, Patrick, > > I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan > of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be > members of the RIPE NCC? > > It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps > that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? What > prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?" > > Best, Rob > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on > Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. - -- ConnectingBytes GmbH - "www.kambach.net" | In der Steele 35, 40599 D?sseldorf, Germany | Telefon: 0800 / 900 2580 - 1, Fax: 0800 / 900 2580 - 2 | Email: pkambach at kambach.net | Web: http://www.kambach.net | | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Patrick Kambach | Amtsgericht D?sseldorf, HRB 60009 | Ust-IdNr.: DE815028832, Steuernummer: 106/5736/0037 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk430tYACgkQCIR+kawbQF0tlQCgs9GlS/ttWjn8xEA3jjrvTs61 3XoAoNT0dyfKPMqDLCL4baObKd8tRUKp =eMUy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From prandini at spe.net Tue Aug 2 12:41:32 2011 From: prandini at spe.net (Paolo Prandini) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:41:32 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <4E37D45C.5040108@spe.net> Hi Rob, that was my initial understanding of the document. As far as I understood, the new rules are meant not to have any sponsoring LIR any more, but to have all the users of any resource directly refer to the RIPE. I don't understand the purpose of this policy, but that's it. If I am wrong, I would like to receive a clarification from the RIPE. Il 02/08/2011 12.05, Rob Evans ha scritto: > Paolo, Patrick, > > I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the RIPE NCC? > > It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? What prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?" > > Best, > Rob > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Dr.Ing.Paolo Prandini Dr.Paolo Prandini Rottendorfer Str. 1 A-9560 Lindl Austria Telefon +43 (0)42765105 Fax +43 (0)427637590 S.P.E.Sistemi e Progetti Elettronici s.a.s. Via Liguria 5 I-25125 Brescia Italia Telefono +39 0302427266 Fax +39 02700406565 Email prandini at spe.net Web http://www.spe.net CA https://ra.spe.net/pub/cacert/cacert.crt ------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. Persons receiving this e-mail message who are not the named addressee (or his/her co-workers, or persons authorized to take delivery) must not use, forward or reproduce its contents. If you have received this e-mail message by mistake, please contact us immediately and delete this e-mail message beyond retrieval. Die Information dieses e-Mails ist vertraulich und ausschliesslich fuer den Adressaten bestimmt. Der Empfanger dieses e-Mails, der nicht der Adressat ist, (sowie einer seiner Mitarbeiter oder seiner Empfangsberechtigter), darf den Inhalt nicht verwenden, weitergeben oder reproduzieren. Sollten Sie dieses e-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie uns bitte unverzueglich und loeschen Sie das e-Mail unwiederbringlich. Questo messaggio contiene informazioni riservate e confidenziali. Se non siete i destinatari del messaggio (o se avete ricevuto il messaggio per errore) Vi preghiamo di darcene immediata comunicazione ritornandoci il messaggio stesso. Qualsiasi copia, riproduzione in genere, uso o distribuzione del materiale contenuto o allegato al presente messaggio ? severamente proibito. From ipas.master at gmail.com Tue Aug 2 12:45:45 2011 From: ipas.master at gmail.com (Andrei) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:45:45 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37D45C.5040108@spe.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> <4E37D45C.5040108@spe.net> Message-ID: heh... ohh my god.... model 2 is looking like 'we need your money' (c) Terminator. I got several calls from our end users about new charging scheme and all of them are shocked from Model 2. =( Model 1 is looking more pretty for me. On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Paolo Prandini wrote: > Hi Rob, that was my initial understanding of the document. > As far as I understood, the new rules are meant not to have any sponsoring > LIR any more, but to have all the users of any resource directly refer to > the RIPE. > I don't understand the purpose of this policy, but that's it. > If I am wrong, I would like to receive a clarification from the RIPE. > > Il 02/08/2011 12.05, Rob Evans ha scritto: >> >> Paolo, Patrick, >> >> I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the >> document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the >> RIPE NCC? >> >> It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that >> already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? ?What prohibits >> the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?" >> >> Best, >> Rob >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, >> please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >> First click on General and then click on Edit. >> At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > > > -- > Dr.Ing.Paolo Prandini > > Dr.Paolo Prandini > Rottendorfer Str. 1 > A-9560 Lindl > Austria > Telefon +43 (0)42765105 > Fax ? ? +43 (0)427637590 > > S.P.E.Sistemi e Progetti Elettronici s.a.s. > Via Liguria 5 > I-25125 Brescia > Italia > Telefono +39 0302427266 > Fax ? ? ?+39 02700406565 > > Email prandini at spe.net > Web http://www.spe.net > CA https://ra.spe.net/pub/cacert/cacert.crt > ------------------------------------------- > The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and > intended > exclusively for the addressee. Persons receiving this e-mail message who are > not the named addressee (or his/her co-workers, or persons authorized to > take > delivery) must not use, forward or reproduce its contents. > If you have received this e-mail message by mistake, please contact us > immediately > and delete this e-mail message beyond retrieval. > > Die Information dieses e-Mails ist vertraulich und ausschliesslich fuer den > Adressaten bestimmt. Der Empfanger dieses e-Mails, der nicht der Adressat > ist, > (sowie einer seiner Mitarbeiter oder seiner Empfangsberechtigter), darf den > Inhalt nicht verwenden, weitergeben oder reproduzieren. > Sollten Sie dieses e-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie uns > bitte unverzueglich und loeschen Sie das e-Mail unwiederbringlich. > > Questo messaggio contiene informazioni riservate e confidenziali. Se non > siete i destinatari del messaggio (o se avete ricevuto il messaggio per > errore) Vi preghiamo di darcene immediata comunicazione ritornandoci il > messaggio stesso. Qualsiasi copia, riproduzione in genere, uso o > distribuzione del materiale contenuto o allegato al presente messaggio ? > severamente proibito. > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss > list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Andrei Kushnireuski Alfa Telecom s.r.o. REGID: cz.alfatelecom nic-hdl: AK1065-RIPE phone: +420226020360 From rhe at nosc.ja.net Tue Aug 2 13:06:49 2011 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:06:49 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> <4E37D45C.5040108@spe.net> Message-ID: <4CC07AAF-501B-4482-B77E-D3CE7B60200D@nosc.ja.net> > heh... ohh my god.... model 2 is looking like 'we need your money' (c) > Terminator. I got several calls from our end users about new charging > scheme and all of them are shocked from Model 2. =( Shocked? Why? You know this is very similar to the current charging model that was brought in following 2007-01 to ensure an ongoing contractual relationship for PI holders, right? Other than the "new" versus "old" charging bands, the only difference is the increase from EUR50 per resource to EUR100 per resource. Rob From heidenreich at sasg.de Tue Aug 2 13:08:46 2011 From: heidenreich at sasg.de (Peter Heidenreich) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:08:46 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4CC07AAF-501B-4482-B77E-D3CE7B60200D@nosc.ja.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> <4E37D45C.5040108@spe.net> <4CC07AAF-501B-4482-B77E-D3CE7B60200D@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <4E37DABE.60601@sasg.de> 50% more? Why? Inflation? :-) Am 02.08.2011 13:06, schrieb Rob Evans: >> heh... ohh my god.... model 2 is looking like 'we need your money' (c) >> Terminator. I got several calls from our end users about new charging >> scheme and all of them are shocked from Model 2. =( > > Shocked? Why? > > You know this is very similar to the current charging model that was brought in following 2007-01 to ensure an ongoing contractual relationship for PI holders, right? > > Other than the "new" versus "old" charging bands, the only difference is the increase from EUR50 per resource to EUR100 per resource. > > Rob > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en Peter Heidenreich SaSG GmbH & Co. KG Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Tel.: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 11 Fax: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 29 eMail: heidenreich at sasg.de Web: www.sasg.de Vertretungsberechtigter Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht M?nchen Handelsregister A (HRA) 90030 Pers?nlich haftender Gesellschafter: SaSG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Vertretungsberechtigter Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht M?nchen Handelsregister B (HRB) 167324 Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer gem?? ? 27a Umsatzsteuergesetz: DE 254 728 254 Steuernummer: 161/174/14705 Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG ist nach ? 6 Telekommunikationsgesetz (TKG) gemeldet. Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG unterliegt somit der Aufsicht der: Bundesnetzagentur f?r Elektrizit?t, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Tulpenfeld 4, D - 53113 Bonn Diese eMail inklusive aller Anlagen ist ausschlie?lich f?r den Adressaten bestimmt und enth?lt m?glicherweise vertrauliche Informationen. Falls der Empf?nger dieser Nachricht nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat oder ein f?r den Mail-Zugang zust?ndiger Mitarbeiter oder Vertreter ist, werden Sie hiermit darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass jede Weitergabe, Verteilung, Vervielf?ltigung oder sonstige Nutzung dieser Nachricht oder ihrer Anlagen verboten ist. Wenn Sie diese Nachricht aus Versehen erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte den Absender per eMail und l?schen Sie diese eMail aus Ihrem Computer. Bitte beachten Sie, dass eMail-Eing?nge an die pers?nliche eMail-Adresse des Empf?ngers mitunter nicht t?glich kontrolliert werden und daher eMails f?r fristgebundene Inhalte nicht geeignet sind! This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and please delete it from your computer. Please note that e-mails to the personal e-mail-address of the receiver of this mail may not be checked on a daily basis and are, therefore, inappropriate for matters subject to a deadline! From wiwi at progon.net Tue Aug 2 12:30:49 2011 From: wiwi at progon.net (Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:30:49 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> Hello from ch.ksz (small), we would oppose any of the current models, because we consider them unfair. To be fair - in our opinion - a billing scheme should fulfil the following requirements: - continuous: No steep jumps. A LIR having allocation equivalent to /18 should pay a bit more than a LIR having a /17. - linear: An IP address should have a price. An LIR with a /12 allocation uses 256 times the resources of an LIR with a /20. This should be reflected in the fee. - cover the costs: I think the effort of RIPE is closely related to the number of allocation requests. So each allocation should have a (on time) fee. But this might prove impractical due to increased billing effort. To consider: - Most LIRs (75%) are small or extra-small in the current billing scheme, so most members pay less than EUR 1800 now. - Major players pay EUR 5500 at most, which will be less than "peanuts" for them. So a first draft of a fair scheme - in our opinion - could look like this: Every LIR pays EUR 500 base fee, for each IP you will be charged EUR 0.002. It's assumed that RIPE's effort is roughly correlating with the logarithmic size of the allocation. So let's set the costs at EUR 400 for each step after /22 (EUR 400 for /21, EUR 800 for /20, ...). This will lead to this billing scheme: /22 EUR 502 /21 EUR 904 /20 EUR 1308 /19 EUR 1716 /18 EUR 2132 /17 EUR 2565 /16 EUR 3031 /15 EUR 3562 /14 EUR 4224 /13 EUR 5148 /12 EUR 6597 /11 EUR 9094 /10 EUR 13688 /9 EUR 22477 /8 EUR 39654 What to YOU about this idea? Best regards, wiwi (Christian Wittenhorst) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robot at snelis.com Tue Aug 2 12:44:47 2011 From: robot at snelis.com (Automated System) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:44:47 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: Dear Marcel, You have 73,440 IP addresses and you charge 0.50 euro per IP per month to your customers. You are even charging 0.20 euro per IPv6 address. And you are seriously complaining about a price increase of 2500 euro?! On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) < medler at optimate-server.de> wrote: > Hello member, > > my LIR has 2x/18, 1x/19, 1x/17 PA-Allocation. > When I look right my membership category will be size L. > I have to pay 5000 Euro a year, because I have one /19 over /16. > I think the price step from category M to category L is to big. 2500Eur -> > 5000Eur > You should add a category between M and L. > It should have this requirements: > IPv4: >/16, <=/14 > price should be 3500 Euro every year > > Its not fair, that I have to pay 5000 Euro, instead 2500 Euro, only I have > one /19 to much to met requirements for category M! > > -- > Regards, > Marcel Edler > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From medler at optimate-server.de Tue Aug 2 12:52:34 2011 From: medler at optimate-server.de (Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de)) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:52:34 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E37D6F2.4080103@optimate-server.de> Hello, what I charge and what I not charge is not important. We want all make profit :) I have a problem, that I have to pay with 73.440IPs so much like an ISP with 1.000.000IPs (/12)! As I wrote to you, the step from M to L is to big. You dont think so? Regards, Marcel Edler Gesch?ftsinhaber Am 02.08.2011 12:44, schrieb Automated System: > Dear Marcel, > > You have 73,440 IP addresses and you charge 0.50 euro per IP per month > to your customers. > You are even charging 0.20 euro per IPv6 address. > > And you are seriously complaining about a price increase of 2500 euro?! > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) > > wrote: > > Hello member, > > my LIR has 2x/18, 1x/19, 1x/17 PA-Allocation. > When I look right my membership category will be size L. > I have to pay 5000 Euro a year, because I have one /19 over /16. > I think the price step from category M to category L is to big. > 2500Eur -> 5000Eur > You should add a category between M and L. > It should have this requirements: > IPv4: >/16, <=/14 > price should be 3500 Euro every year > > Its not fair, that I have to pay 5000 Euro, instead 2500 Euro, > only I have > one /19 to much to met requirements for category M! > > -- > Regards, > Marcel Edler > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phil at hitrail.com Tue Aug 2 13:08:08 2011 From: phil at hitrail.com (Phil Barton) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:08:08 +0100 Subject: {Spam?} RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <024401cc5104$763add30$62b09790$@com> As I remember the discussions the introduction of charging for PI was to balance the XXS member alternative. What is the difference between a customer with a PI and an XXS member? If you charge for one should you not charge for the other and since you cannot charge the user of the PI you charge the LIR who allocates it -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rob Evans Sent: 02 August 2011 11:06 To: Paolo Prandini Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Paolo, Patrick, I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the RIPE NCC? It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? What prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?" Best, Rob ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3805 - Release Date: 08/02/11 From alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net Tue Aug 2 13:26:28 2011 From: alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net (Alfredo Sola) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:26:28 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required In-Reply-To: <78fad2d65fb8c74ae2b5c3e56090e030@kazar.net> References: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> <78fad2d65fb8c74ae2b5c3e56090e030@kazar.net> Message-ID: <0DD4FF05-5E90-47ED-8607-F02885450CCE@solucionesdinamicas.net> >> 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 - > 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). I think that the classification of a population into in a small number of classes for taxation or otherwise cost calculation owes to two basic reasons: (1) It dates back to when there existed no computers and therefore was not possible to make it perfectly fair for everyone without extensive manual calculations; (2) public laws, and quite often private entities' rules, being made by lawyers, who usually have a minimum background in mathemathics - therefore simply not enough knowledge among lawmakers in mathematics to make more precise schemes. Being the bunch of creative, numbers-oriented people that we (the LIRs and the RIPE) are, I think we could come up with something much better. I envision a formula which will give a calculation to the penny which is perfectly fair for each and every LIR. Such a formula doesn't have to be terribly complicated - no need for Fourier transforms or imaginary numbers. It may simply be a sum of the cost components, each with a factor to account for its weight in the overall cost. Cost components may include things like: - Amount of IPv4 space allocated - Amount of IPv6 space allocated (can be waived for a few years to help LIRs deploy IPv6) - Amount of IPv4 space assigned (i.e., usually generating revenue for the LIR) - Amount of IPv6 space assigned (same as before, and probably waived for a few years for the same reason) - Amount of AS numbers - Amount of unused (or undocumented) IP space (to give a good reason to keep the database updated!), - Assistance to meetings (this one with a negative factor, of course) - Operating cost of the RIPE NCC divided by number of LIRs at previous year end (to cover expenses tied to managing a LIR which are independent of its size) - Labs projects sponsorship (negative factor for this one too) Each LIR would then be able to calculate well in advance its cost for the following year - so it would not be different from now, and therefore, we'd not face the opposition of our financial deparments. Quite the contrary - the cost would be somewhat more predictable, and the contention would be limited to the factors for each cost component. But because each factor would not fluctuate much from year to year, and even if they did the overall effect would be relatively small, they would not be as big a source of trouble as the proposed changes are now. -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/ From ipas.master at gmail.com Tue Aug 2 13:40:54 2011 From: ipas.master at gmail.com (Andrei) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:40:54 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4CC07AAF-501B-4482-B77E-D3CE7B60200D@nosc.ja.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> <4E37D45C.5040108@spe.net> <4CC07AAF-501B-4482-B77E-D3CE7B60200D@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: 15000 euro + 100 euro per object is looking like little bit expensive against existing 3400 euro + 50 per object. Am I right? Also we need to contact all our customers and describe them why do we decide to double their annual fee. I'm sure not all our customers agree with this payment because they'll be forced to pay more than XXS annual fee. Currently our customer pay: 50 euro per PI IPv4 + 50 euro per AS + 50 euro per PI IPv6 + 75 euro our fee. If Model2 scheme will be approved end customers will be forced to pay 375 euro (more than XXS LIR registration). > Other than the "new" versus "old" charging bands, the only difference is the increase from EUR50 per resource to EUR100 per resource. -- Andrei Kushnireuski Alfa Telecom s.r.o. REGID: cz.alfatelecom nic-hdl: AK1065-RIPE phone: +420226020360 From andrey at trifle.net Tue Aug 2 13:24:57 2011 From: andrey at trifle.net (Andrey Semenchuk) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:24:57 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models Message-ID: <4E37DE89.1070204@trifle.net> Hello, > All contracts for any RIPE NCC products or services will be between the RIPE NCC and a member Last few years it were additional contracts between LIRs and End Users. This thesis is not clear: will be the contracts between LIRs and End Users or they will be cancelled? > The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on 2 November 2011. > > In Model 1, there is no charge for PI assignments > In Model 2, each additional PI assignment incurs a charge of EUR 100 per assignment. This charge is an increase from the current PI charge but better reflects the amount of work the RIPE NCC must do to administer and assign PI space. There's no explanation in the new charging scheme how PI assignments will be calculated, If calculations will be the same as fot charging scheme 2011, charging scheme will be applied to the number of assignments at 30th september 2011. So, since 30th september till 2th november 2011 LIRs will not have any idea about final charging scheme but should sign agreements with End Users. As for me, provided changes shoud be discussed for charging scheme 2013 or discussion of the new charging scheme should be made before 30th september 2011 -- Best wishes, Andrey Semenchuk Trifle Internet Service Provider (056) 731-99-11 www.trifle.net From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Tue Aug 2 14:49:38 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:49:38 -0400 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E37F262.8030300@speednic.eu> Hello member, I guess like each category will move to one higher level. But as we are member since more than 10 years we think the price level isn't to high and accurate because years before in relation we had higher prices as the new charging scheme will show us. Sure the last years were very low pricing but we should know that costs will grew up too. But other stuff. The difference between "model 1" and "model 2" will be the PI assigment. But where is the difference of the pricing ?? Each category will have the same fee ??? @ RIPE is there a error in the model table ?? Am 01.08.2011 20:11, schrieb Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de): > Hello member, > > my LIR has 2x/18, 1x/19, 1x/17 PA-Allocation. > When I look right my membership category will be size L. > I have to pay 5000 Euro a year, because I have one /19 over /16. > I think the price step from category M to category L is to big. 2500Eur > -> 5000Eur > You should add a category between M and L. > It should have this requirements: > IPv4: >/16, <=/14 > price should be 3500 Euro every year > > Its not fair, that I have to pay 5000 Euro, instead 2500 Euro, only I have > one /19 to much to met requirements for category M! > with one /19 you are category S !!! So you will pay (with model 1) with no PI payment 2500 Euro instead of old 1900 Euro ;) bye Alex From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Aug 2 14:52:28 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:52:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required In-Reply-To: <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> References: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> Message-ID: On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote: > (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). THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip space for third parties and charge them for the service. the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, not for RIPE to steal their customers ;) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, 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. > > 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. > > 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). > > With regards, > Daniel > > > On 08/01/2011 05:17 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the >> membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on >> 2 November 2011. >> >> The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on >> various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would >> like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models >> before deciding on a final version to present at the GM. >> >> The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational >> principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' >> features and differences, are presented at: >> https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-new-charging-scheme-2012 >> >> >> The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed >> models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by >> sending an email directly to agm at ripe.net. >> >> After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed >> Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it >> will present to the membership at the GM. >> >> If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with >> other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the >> members-discuss at ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can >> be found online at: >> https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-lists >> >> >> We look forward to hearing your comments. >> >> Regards, >> >> Nigel Titley >> RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > From jens.winter at zexotek.de Tue Aug 2 15:19:43 2011 From: jens.winter at zexotek.de (ZeXoTeK IT-Services | Jens Winter) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:19:43 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Message-ID: <6E2C965066B741D8B85A66DC99E63B24@jens7ce2edd5c1> Hello, as Marcel wrote before, i also think the step between category M and L is to big. The Charging Scheme 2011 said: LARGE ? 4,100 I think ? 3,500 for catecory L should be ok, because it is between category M and L in the Charging Scheme of 2011. At this moment we have to calculate the Charging Scheme from IPv4 allocations, and IPv4 is running out. This mean, in future all LIR?s cannot get any IPv4 in big blocks so that they can use the free space in his category for growing. By Jens Winter X-NCC-RegID: de.zexotek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danny at danysek.cz Tue Aug 2 15:24:32 2011 From: danny at danysek.cz (Daniel Suchy) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:24:32 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required In-Reply-To: References: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> Message-ID: <4E37FA90.3090707@danysek.cz> On 08/02/2011 02:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote: >> (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). > > THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip > space for third parties and charge them for the service. > > the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both > RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR > customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to > register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable > as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, > not for RIPE to steal their customers ;) > Yes, LIR register addresses for their customers and charges them. That's clear. But, one of goals of LIR system (and internet registry system in general) is address space aggregation. And by the (resselled) PI space, this goal isn't reached at all - with PI, there's no aggregation. This is very often forgotten by some LIRs. "PI for everyone" is also one misinterpretation of LIR tasks. End users should be aware about the fact, that ISP(LIR) change does mean renumbering of their network and PI isn't here just because someone End users doesn't like this annoying job. LIR should learn about this their End users - but many LIRs doesn't do this part of their job. - Daniel From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Aug 2 16:04:55 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required In-Reply-To: <4E37FA90.3090707@danysek.cz> References: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> <4E37FA90.3090707@danysek.cz> Message-ID: well, frankly, we don't give a fuck about people with old ciscos with 64MB ram... if you don't have a few gigabytes of ram by now in your routers, gtfo of the business :P so address space aggregation, is of no concern at all. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote: > On 08/02/2011 02:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote: >>> (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). >> >> THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip >> space for third parties and charge them for the service. >> >> the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both >> RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR >> customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to >> register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable >> as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, >> not for RIPE to steal their customers ;) >> > > Yes, LIR register addresses for their customers and charges them. That's > clear. > > But, one of goals of LIR system (and internet registry system in > general) is address space aggregation. And by the (resselled) PI space, > this goal isn't reached at all - with PI, there's no aggregation. This > is very often forgotten by some LIRs. > > "PI for everyone" is also one misinterpretation of LIR tasks. End users > should be aware about the fact, that ISP(LIR) change does mean > renumbering of their network and PI isn't here just because someone End > users doesn't like this annoying job. LIR should learn about this their > End users - but many LIRs doesn't do this part of their job. > > - Daniel > From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Aug 2 16:06:49 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:06:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required In-Reply-To: <4E37FA90.3090707@danysek.cz> References: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> <4E37FA90.3090707@danysek.cz> Message-ID: we are indeed, in favour of the "pi for everyone" model. this is how the internet was supposed to work, there shall be no contractual or "resource" dependancy on anything (lirs, governments, etc) for anyone. if that takes routers with a few TERA bytes of ram, who cares. (that shit costs nothing anyway ;) upgrades people, upgrades. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote: > On 08/02/2011 02:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote: >>> (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). >> >> THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip >> space for third parties and charge them for the service. >> >> the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both >> RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR >> customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to >> register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable >> as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, >> not for RIPE to steal their customers ;) >> > > Yes, LIR register addresses for their customers and charges them. That's > clear. > > But, one of goals of LIR system (and internet registry system in > general) is address space aggregation. And by the (resselled) PI space, > this goal isn't reached at all - with PI, there's no aggregation. This > is very often forgotten by some LIRs. > > "PI for everyone" is also one misinterpretation of LIR tasks. End users > should be aware about the fact, that ISP(LIR) change does mean > renumbering of their network and PI isn't here just because someone End > users doesn't like this annoying job. LIR should learn about this their > End users - but many LIRs doesn't do this part of their job. > > - Daniel > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Aug 2 16:10:57 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:10:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required In-Reply-To: <4E37FA90.3090707@danysek.cz> References: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> <4E370E04.2030802@danysek.cz> <4E37FA90.3090707@danysek.cz> Message-ID: furthermore, considering the fact that ripes makes more probems about PI space than giving the END USER a LIR with (even more!) address space than requested in the PI :P we are considering to use PA space -AS- PI space, and simply not announce it ourselves and give the end users a 100 year usage contract :P there is nothing that says you have to announce PA space on your own network anyway. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote: > On 08/02/2011 02:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote: >>> (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). >> >> THIS my friend, is EXACTLY what a LIR is supposed to do. register ip >> space for third parties and charge them for the service. >> >> the whole LIR == ISP crap, is a misinterpretation of the tasks of both >> RIPE and LIRS, as is the fact that they encourage potential LIR >> customers of becoming a LIR themselves, rather than paying a LIR to >> register PI space for them (the legal aspects of which, are questionable >> as well, after all, LIRS pay RIPE to enable them to register PI space, >> not for RIPE to steal their customers ;) >> > > Yes, LIR register addresses for their customers and charges them. That's > clear. > > But, one of goals of LIR system (and internet registry system in > general) is address space aggregation. And by the (resselled) PI space, > this goal isn't reached at all - with PI, there's no aggregation. This > is very often forgotten by some LIRs. > > "PI for everyone" is also one misinterpretation of LIR tasks. End users > should be aware about the fact, that ISP(LIR) change does mean > renumbering of their network and PI isn't here just because someone End > users doesn't like this annoying job. LIR should learn about this their > End users - but many LIRs doesn't do this part of their job. > > - Daniel > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > From jochem at ripe.net Tue Aug 2 16:37:00 2011 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:37:00 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Response to queries on Charging Scheme Models Message-ID: <7B6198A7-B820-4073-B92C-4E344F9E7C32@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented. In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs. It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs. Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve. The service fees mentioned are based on: - The current expense forecast for 2012 - The current membership growth forecast - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve) Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow. Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1. We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly. Kind regards, Jochem de Ruig Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1735 bytes Desc: not available URL: From frank at openminds.be Tue Aug 2 17:44:17 2011 From: frank at openminds.be (Frank Louwers) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:44:17 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Response to queries on Charging Scheme Models In-Reply-To: <7B6198A7-B820-4073-B92C-4E344F9E7C32@ripe.net> References: <7B6198A7-B820-4073-B92C-4E344F9E7C32@ripe.net> Message-ID: <26CFA009-819C-427B-8D7E-3150DC3735B3@openminds.be> Jochem, Thank you for your added comments. Can you comment on two items: - The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change? - With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect? Regards, Frank On 02 Aug 2011, at 16:37, Jochem de Ruig wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented. > > In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs. > > It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs. > > Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve. > > The service fees mentioned are based on: > - The current expense forecast for 2012 > - The current membership growth forecast > - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve) > > Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow. > > Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1. > > We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly. > > Kind regards, > > > Jochem de Ruig > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC From drew.marshall at trunknetworks.com Tue Aug 2 17:45:48 2011 From: drew.marshall at trunknetworks.com (Drew Marshall) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:45:48 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37B293.5090901@sasg.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B293.5090901@sasg.de> Message-ID: On 2 Aug 2011, at 09:17, Peter Heidenreich wrote: > Hello, > > we have the same situation and i still wrote an email to agm at ripe.net. > > We currently have a /20 and two /21. We are in the billing category > "small". With the new charging scheme we are in the category "M" and we > have to pay 2.500 EUR per year. > Actually we pay 1.600 EUR per year. > > I think also that it is not fair that we should pay 900,- more without > any benefit! > I would agree that the break point between medium and small looks to be in the wrong place (or right place, depending on which side of the fence you sit!). We have 1 x /21 as our first allocation and 1 x /20 as our second as we used up the first /21 and under the new charging structure we have suddenly become medium because of the extra /21 and are facing a significant price hike. I very much like the idea that I saw where the charges were on a sliding scale, as this strikes me a being far fairer. I know we should pay more for our allocation than someone with a single /21 but I also feel we should pay less than someone with a /16. My thoughts for what they are worth. Drew From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Aug 2 19:02:46 2011 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:02:46 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Response to queries on Charging Scheme Models In-Reply-To: <7B6198A7-B820-4073-B92C-4E344F9E7C32@ripe.net> References: <7B6198A7-B820-4073-B92C-4E344F9E7C32@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20110802170246.GC69269@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi Jochem, On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 04:37:00PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote: > In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim > to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between > LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs. It may not have been > fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the > Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct > contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE > Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes > caters for these DAUs. Thank you for the clarifications. I have another question: Do sponsored ASN count into the category? (eg, does a LIR with 1x /22 PA allocation but sponsoring 5 ASN now fall into 'Large'? If so, this would, very much, discriminate against small LIRs who hold few resources themselves but sponsor for end users. Overall, my preference would be for a "low cost airline" charging model with charges for each resource as required by the LIR. This might even be an incentive for LIRs to return unused resources in order to cut their bill. I realise that such a system would probably make forecasting harder for the NCC. rgds, Sascha Luck From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Aug 2 20:20:50 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Response to queries on Charging Scheme Models In-Reply-To: <26CFA009-819C-427B-8D7E-3150DC3735B3@openminds.be> References: <7B6198A7-B820-4073-B92C-4E344F9E7C32@ripe.net> <26CFA009-819C-427B-8D7E-3150DC3735B3@openminds.be> Message-ID: why even take the trouble to adjust the billing model to obsolete crap like ipv4 address blocks anyway... its not worth the trouble anymore. if we come up with a new billing structure, primarily based on ipv4 -now- we are going to have to change it AGAIN once nobody gives a flying fuck about v4 anymore (anytime soon now :P think its best to just leave it as it is for a few months-years and change it AFTER ipv6 only networks are the de-facto standard. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Frank Louwers wrote: > Jochem, > > Thank you for your added comments. Can you comment on two items: > > - The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change? > > - With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect? > > Regards, > > Frank > > > On 02 Aug 2011, at 16:37, Jochem de Ruig wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented. >> >> In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs. >> >> It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs. >> >> Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve. >> >> The service fees mentioned are based on: >> - The current expense forecast for 2012 >> - The current membership growth forecast >> - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve) >> >> Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow. >> >> Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1. >> >> We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Jochem de Ruig >> Chief Financial Officer >> RIPE NCC > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > From medler at optimate-server.de Tue Aug 2 23:14:26 2011 From: medler at optimate-server.de (Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de)) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:14:26 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: /22 EUR 502 /21 EUR 904 /20 EUR 1308 /19 EUR 1716 /18 EUR 2132 /17 EUR 2565 /16 EUR 3031 /15 EUR 3562 /14 EUR 4224 /13 EUR 5148 /12 EUR 6597 /11 EUR 9094 /10 EUR 13688 /9 EUR 22477 /8 EUR 39654 In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! I prefer Christian's idea. Regards, Marcel Edler Gesch?ftsinhaber From heidenreich at sasg.de Wed Aug 3 09:49:50 2011 From: heidenreich at sasg.de (Peter Heidenreich) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:49:50 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E38FD9E.6090803@sasg.de> Hi all, that sounds good and fair. +1 Am 02.08.2011 23:14, schrieb Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de): > Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, > > this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: > /22 EUR 502 > /21 EUR 904 > /20 EUR 1308 > /19 EUR 1716 > /18 EUR 2132 > /17 EUR 2565 > /16 EUR 3031 > /15 EUR 3562 > /14 EUR 4224 > /13 EUR 5148 > /12 EUR 6597 > /11 EUR 9094 > /10 EUR 13688 > /9 EUR 22477 > /8 EUR 39654 > > In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs > (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! > I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. > The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. > I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! > > I prefer Christian's idea. > > Regards, > Marcel Edler > Gesch?ftsinhaber > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en Peter Heidenreich SaSG GmbH & Co. KG Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Tel.: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 11 Fax: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 29 eMail: heidenreich at sasg.de Web: www.sasg.de Vertretungsberechtigter Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht M?nchen Handelsregister A (HRA) 90030 Pers?nlich haftender Gesellschafter: SaSG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Vertretungsberechtigter Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht M?nchen Handelsregister B (HRB) 167324 Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer gem?? ? 27a Umsatzsteuergesetz: DE 254 728 254 Steuernummer: 161/174/14705 Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG ist nach ? 6 Telekommunikationsgesetz (TKG) gemeldet. Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG unterliegt somit der Aufsicht der: Bundesnetzagentur f?r Elektrizit?t, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Tulpenfeld 4, D - 53113 Bonn Diese eMail inklusive aller Anlagen ist ausschlie?lich f?r den Adressaten bestimmt und enth?lt m?glicherweise vertrauliche Informationen. Falls der Empf?nger dieser Nachricht nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat oder ein f?r den Mail-Zugang zust?ndiger Mitarbeiter oder Vertreter ist, werden Sie hiermit darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass jede Weitergabe, Verteilung, Vervielf?ltigung oder sonstige Nutzung dieser Nachricht oder ihrer Anlagen verboten ist. Wenn Sie diese Nachricht aus Versehen erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte den Absender per eMail und l?schen Sie diese eMail aus Ihrem Computer. Bitte beachten Sie, dass eMail-Eing?nge an die pers?nliche eMail-Adresse des Empf?ngers mitunter nicht t?glich kontrolliert werden und daher eMails f?r fristgebundene Inhalte nicht geeignet sind! This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and please delete it from your computer. Please note that e-mails to the personal e-mail-address of the receiver of this mail may not be checked on a daily basis and are, therefore, inappropriate for matters subject to a deadline! From gytis at roventa.lt Wed Aug 3 09:54:44 2011 From: gytis at roventa.lt (=?UTF-8?B?R3l0aXMgQmVyZXNuZXZpxI1pdXM=?=) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:54:44 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E38FEC4.60009@roventa.lt> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 it seems this is a good idea On 2011.08.03 00:14, Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) wrote: > Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, > > this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: /22 EUR > 502 /21 EUR 904 /20 EUR 1308 /19 EUR 1716 /18 EUR 2132 /17 > EUR 2565 /16 EUR 3031 /15 EUR 3562 /14 EUR 4224 /13 EUR 5148 > /12 EUR 6597 /11 EUR 9094 /10 EUR 13688 /9 EUR 22477 /8 EUR > 39654 > > In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs > (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! I pay 0,068 Euro > for each IP. The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for > each IP. I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! > > I prefer Christian's idea. > > Regards, Marcel Edler Gesch?ftsinhaber > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on > Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAk44/sQACgkQaFyIpOB3yTa9BACeKzBZBrIWdj5bi3YeIhBfRZy/ 0pkAnjnz6NcRZL+rLOnIx+Pt8j/hne72 =G8Zn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From apn at keytradebank.com Wed Aug 3 09:57:27 2011 From: apn at keytradebank.com (Arnaud de Prelle) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:57:27 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E38FD9E.6090803@sasg.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E38FD9E.6090803@sasg.de> Message-ID: <24995B9E8D4FD74BBE208F59D248C60E67CA9E28@exmbw01.keytrade.com> +1 as well for be.keytrade (AS43751). We should pay for what we really have. Kind Regards, Arnaud. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Peter Heidenreich Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:50 AM Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Hi all, that sounds good and fair. +1 Am 02.08.2011 23:14, schrieb Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de): > Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, > > this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: > /22 EUR 502 > /21 EUR 904 > /20 EUR 1308 > /19 EUR 1716 > /18 EUR 2132 > /17 EUR 2565 > /16 EUR 3031 > /15 EUR 3562 > /14 EUR 4224 > /13 EUR 5148 > /12 EUR 6597 > /11 EUR 9094 > /10 EUR 13688 > /9 EUR 22477 > /8 EUR 39654 > > In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs > (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! > I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. > The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. > I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! > > I prefer Christian's idea. > > Regards, > Marcel Edler > Gesch?ftsinhaber > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en Peter Heidenreich SaSG GmbH & Co. KG Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Tel.: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 11 Fax: +49 (0) 81 05 - 730 66 - 29 eMail: heidenreich at sasg.de Web: www.sasg.de Vertretungsberechtigter Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht M?nchen Handelsregister A (HRA) 90030 Pers?nlich haftender Gesellschafter: SaSG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH Cecinastr. 70 D - 82205 Gilching Vertretungsberechtigter Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Peter Heidenreich Registergericht M?nchen Handelsregister B (HRB) 167324 Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer gem?? ? 27a Umsatzsteuergesetz: DE 254 728 254 Steuernummer: 161/174/14705 Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG ist nach ? 6 Telekommunikationsgesetz (TKG) gemeldet. Die SaSG GmbH & Co. KG unterliegt somit der Aufsicht der: Bundesnetzagentur f?r Elektrizit?t, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Tulpenfeld 4, D - 53113 Bonn Diese eMail inklusive aller Anlagen ist ausschlie?lich f?r den Adressaten bestimmt und enth?lt m?glicherweise vertrauliche Informationen. Falls der Empf?nger dieser Nachricht nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat oder ein f?r den Mail-Zugang zust?ndiger Mitarbeiter oder Vertreter ist, werden Sie hiermit darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass jede Weitergabe, Verteilung, Vervielf?ltigung oder sonstige Nutzung dieser Nachricht oder ihrer Anlagen verboten ist. Wenn Sie diese Nachricht aus Versehen erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte den Absender per eMail und l?schen Sie diese eMail aus Ihrem Computer. Bitte beachten Sie, dass eMail-Eing?nge an die pers?nliche eMail-Adresse des Empf?ngers mitunter nicht t?glich kontrolliert werden und daher eMails f?r fristgebundene Inhalte nicht geeignet sind! This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and please delete it from your computer. Please note that e-mails to the personal e-mail-address of the receiver of this mail may not be checked on a daily basis and are, therefore, inappropriate for matters subject to a deadline! ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. _____________________________________________________________________ Keytrade Bank accepts no liability for the content of this email. For more info please visit http://www.keytradebank.com/en/home/maildisclaimer/ From klj at itafdelingen.dk Wed Aug 3 09:58:56 2011 From: klj at itafdelingen.dk (Kim Lars Jakobsen) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:58:56 +0200 Subject: SV: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <6FED619A96B1C04D88541431819E4DA243E576EEB6@exchange01.It-afdelingen.local> Hi all, I also support this model, regardless of number of resources that we have. It is a fair model for everyone. Med venlig hilsen / Best regards Kim Lars Jakobsen It-afdelingen Dr. Neergaards Vej 5F DK-2970 H?rsholm Telefon: 70 20 23 34 Fax: 70 20 23 74 www.itafdelingen.net - klj at itafdelingen.net -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] P? vegne af Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) Sendt: 2. august 2011 23:14 Til: members-discuss at ripe.net Emne: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: /22 EUR 502 /21 EUR 904 /20 EUR 1308 /19 EUR 1716 /18 EUR 2132 /17 EUR 2565 /16 EUR 3031 /15 EUR 3562 /14 EUR 4224 /13 EUR 5148 /12 EUR 6597 /11 EUR 9094 /10 EUR 13688 /9 EUR 22477 /8 EUR 39654 In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! I prefer Christian's idea. Regards, Marcel Edler Gesch?ftsinhaber ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. From rasto.rickardt at gtsnextra.sk Wed Aug 3 10:23:55 2011 From: rasto.rickardt at gtsnextra.sk (Rasto Rickardt) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:23:55 +0200 Subject: SV: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <6FED619A96B1C04D88541431819E4DA243E576EEB6@exchange01.It-afdelingen.local> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <6FED619A96B1C04D88541431819E4DA243E576EEB6@exchange01.It-afdelingen.local> Message-ID: <4E39059B.8080402@gtsnextra.sk> +1 for this, fair for all. Rasto Rickardt sk.gts On 3. 8. 2011 9:58, Kim Lars Jakobsen wrote: > Hi all, > > I also support this model, regardless of number of resources that we have. It is a fair model for everyone. > > Med venlig hilsen / Best regards > > Kim Lars Jakobsen > It-afdelingen > Dr. Neergaards Vej 5F > DK-2970 H?rsholm > > Telefon: 70 20 23 34 > Fax: 70 20 23 74 > > www.itafdelingen.net - klj at itafdelingen.net > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] P? vegne af Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) > Sendt: 2. august 2011 23:14 > Til: members-discuss at ripe.net > Emne: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst > > Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, > > this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: > /22 EUR 502 > /21 EUR 904 > /20 EUR 1308 > /19 EUR 1716 > /18 EUR 2132 > /17 EUR 2565 > /16 EUR 3031 > /15 EUR 3562 > /14 EUR 4224 > /13 EUR 5148 > /12 EUR 6597 > /11 EUR 9094 > /10 EUR 13688 > /9 EUR 22477 > /8 EUR 39654 > > In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs > (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! > I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. > The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. > I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! > > I prefer Christian's idea. > > Regards, > Marcel Edler > Gesch?ftsinhaber > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. From jens.winter at zexotek.de Wed Aug 3 10:33:32 2011 From: jens.winter at zexotek.de (ZeXoTeK IT-Services | Jens Winter) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:33:32 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Message-ID: Hello, yes the idea from Christian Wittenhorst is great. I think this is the best charging scheme for fairness over all members. By jens -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pkambach at kambach.net Wed Aug 3 10:59:49 2011 From: pkambach at kambach.net (Patrick Kambach) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:59:49 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E390E05.4040801@kambach.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +2 ;) two LIR's :D br, patrick Am 03.08.2011 10:33, schrieb ZeXoTeK IT-Services | Jens Winter: > Hello, > > yes the idea from Christian Wittenhorst is great. > > I think this is the best charging scheme for fairness over all > members. > > > > By > > jens > > > - -- ConnectingBytes GmbH - "www.kambach.net" | In der Steele 35, 40599 D?sseldorf, Germany | Telefon: 0800 / 900 2580 - 1, Fax: 0800 / 900 2580 - 2 | Email: pkambach at kambach.net | Web: http://www.kambach.net | | Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Patrick Kambach | Amtsgericht D?sseldorf, HRB 60009 | Ust-IdNr.: DE815028832, Steuernummer: 106/5736/0037 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk45DgUACgkQCIR+kawbQF10qQCgwWb/y2qm/eLE9GF54tvKn8Ow CBYAn1mjA7tMIFLaWA4Vf2knZR+NB9xv =nZbf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jblessing at llnw.com Wed Aug 3 11:23:14 2011 From: jblessing at llnw.com (James Blessing) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:23:14 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> On 02/08/2011 22:14, Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) wrote: > In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs > (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! > I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. > The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. > I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! Er, what about the other db resources? ASNs, IPv6 space, PI etc? If you want a per 'thing' pricing structure would it not be better to charge: Membership X,000 PA (or X00) db object Y PA (i.e. each object in the db be that a /24 or /8 of v4 space, a /32 or an ASN) This would then better reflect the 'impact' on the db (it might also encourage a better maintenance of the db) you could of course charge different value for each type of object if the NCC can quantify the 'impact cost' of each type of resource. J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks From kurtis at netnod.se Wed Aug 3 11:25:22 2011 From: kurtis at netnod.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:25:22 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required In-Reply-To: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> References: <4E36C384.7070706@ripe.net> Message-ID: <35A0D587-99C3-4B08-AB55-BCABA2D25EEB@netnod.se> On 1 aug 2011, at 17:17, Nigel Titley wrote: > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on 2 November 2011. > > The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models before deciding on a final version to present at the GM. > > The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' features and differences, are presented at: > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-new-charging-scheme-2012 > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by sending an email directly to agm at ripe.net. > > After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it will present to the membership at the GM. > > If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the members-discuss at ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can be found online at: > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-lists > > We look forward to hearing your comments. (My apologies for a rather lengthy reply) So I have a few comments and observations. First of all, I understand that the the current model is complex, and that there might be a desire to make it easier to predict. Secondly, I welcome that the RIPE NCC is trying to break out cross-subsidies of the various services the RIPE NCC provides, and that each service should support it's own costs. Making the suers of these services become members of the RIPE NCC and allowing a membership category where they can have their say, but without becoming resources holders is a very good one that I support fully. However, in line with this I don't' understand why the cross-subsidisation of DNSMON therefor is reintroduced for the larger membership categories. I believe this should be taken out of the proposed billing models. This brings me to my first observation. I think most of us in the RIPE NCC membership thinks of the RIPE NCC membership fees as the cost of maintaining the resource registration data. In reality however, we through the RIPE NCC membership fees pays for (I believe) the majority of the RIPE meeting costs, the RIPE RIS services, etc. Services that we might or might not feel are important that that we perhaps might not miss until they are gone. RIPE NCC, and the entire RIR system, is about to change. The changes are huge and will impact their roles and responsibilities going forward, and a natural result of that is to evaluate the revenue models as well as the cost. When the RIPE NCC board and management team proposed the changes, I believe they didn't plan to ask for an evaluation of their path going forward, but none the less I believe that is what is needed. The reason for this is my observation above - that the fees pays for so much more than just resource registration data - and I believe that we are the RIPE NCC membership community now needs to make a conscious decision of what we are willing to pay for, how and realize that we might miss some services as a result of some possible billing models. The discussion on the list has focused on fairness and absolute numbers, but I believe we have to leave the absolute numbers for now, and first make up our minds on what we actually are trying to cover with these numbers. That said, I think the billing scheme needs to take a few principles into account. ?1. It should reflect the use of the resources of the RIPE NCC. With unbundling of some of current cross-subsisides for other projects, this becomes easier. I believe and hope, that all NCC members support some of the cross-subsidisation that is occurring to for example the RIPE meetings and the RIPE regional meetings - so there will be some level of extra costs covered. Measuring the real use of the RIPE NCC resources is hard, but one of the factors of the current model actually does this quite well - the time a resources holder has had a resource. Partly because the longer a resource has been in use the less like it is to go through major changes, partly because it creates a potential financial barrier on fast-flux trading of resources. I believe this is good, and also creates a potential barrier against fragmentation of resources. Not so much because of worries of the routing table (if you have drunk the Cisco coolaid LISP will save us all anyway) but because if measures the use of RIPE NCC resources. Which is fair. Further, the size of an allocation also gives a fairly good measure of potential use of RIPE NCC resources in that the larger the block, the larger number of possible assignments are that needs to be registered or otherwise handled by the RIPE NCC. This is to me fairness in the model. Not just the size of an allocation with a price per IP. That is not necessarily fair either as has been argued by some. ?2. The RIPE NCC budget needs to be balanced The RIPE NCC charges needs to cover the costs, and leave a health reserve. Jochen said that the current proposed models are based on the forecasts of member and cost. I believe Jochen in this, but the problem is that it's hard to have a view of the absolute numbers without being able to compare cost per service, forecast membership categories and associated revenues. I think it would be good if this was presented as well. Also, as for my second observation, my crystal ball tells me that as we run out of IPv4 and we possibly start trading in IPv4 addresses the work load of the RIPE NCC might go up and might justify higher revenues and larger numbers of members. However, as the market saturates the workload will either stabilize, and/if when IPv6 gets a stronger market presence it will go down. Most LIRs that have their /32 will not come back for more for a very long time. This will lead to lower costs and again a different model is needed that will keep the RIPE NCCs core business - registration services - operational, and with a model that reflects cost. AGain, this cost probably will include some additional services, the questions are which ones? ?4. The RIPE NCC budget and services needs to be inclusive While I strongly believe that some services that are currently cross-subsidized shouldn't be - I also strongly believe that there are those that should be. Primarily RIPE meetings, RIPE regional meetings and the policy development process. The reason for this is that the current legitimacy is less and less coming from the historical support of the community for the RIPE process and the RIPE NCC and more and more from the proof of a functioning system, running code if you so wish, and the continued trust and use of the processes and the RIPE NCC. The RIPE region and RIPE have more than any of the other RIR regions (if I may say so) proven that we can adopt to new needs, to changing political, financial and operational realities. This has seen a continued support and trust in the model. This is only possible by outreach and interaction with the very widespread (both geographical and cultural) community that RIPE and the RIPE NCC serve. It's extremely important that this is continued in order to keep the current model, which I believe serves all of us better than any of the other models proposed. ?3. Each extra service needs to carry it's own costs The RIPE NCC has been very good at producing new and innovative services, many of very good and important operational use. However, I also believe that the process for developing them and gauging community interest in these services could be improved - and as a strong believer in market economy I think that having them self financed is a very good model for getting community interest input. This will of course not be black and white, but I think the proposed model is a step in the right direction. In a way I guess I am arguing for keeping the current model - but I also see the drawbacks. But I believe that some of the fairness in time of allocations needs to be captured. I also question the doubling in cost for PI holders without further explanation. And as said above, I think there first are some more fundamental questions we as members needs to ask ourselves. Best regards, - kurtis - --- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO kurtis at netnod.se, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00 Franz?ngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden From kiwi at kazar.net Wed Aug 3 11:15:25 2011 From: kiwi at kazar.net (Xavier BEAUDOUIN) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:15:25 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Message-ID: <2m51y1umiwtpd53qmn9mr0mh.1312362925103@email.android.com> +1 Association kazar "Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de)" a ?crit?: >Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, > >this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: > /22 EUR 502 > /21 EUR 904 > /20 EUR 1308 > /19 EUR 1716 > /18 EUR 2132 > /17 EUR 2565 > /16 EUR 3031 > /15 EUR 3562 > /14 EUR 4224 > /13 EUR 5148 > /12 EUR 6597 > /11 EUR 9094 > /10 EUR 13688 > /9 EUR 22477 > /8 EUR 39654 > >In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs >(1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! >I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. >The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. >I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! > >I prefer Christian's idea. > >Regards, >Marcel Edler >Gesch?ftsinhaber > >---- >If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >First click on General and then click on Edit. >At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. From nikl at fannet.ru Wed Aug 3 11:27:37 2011 From: nikl at fannet.ru (Nikola Krasnoyarsky) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:27:37 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E390E05.4040801@kambach.net> References: <4E390E05.4040801@kambach.net> Message-ID: <4E391489.4070101@fannet.ru> On 08/03/2011 12:59 PM, Patrick Kambach wrote: +1 (ru.fannet) for wiwi's idea ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Nikola Krasnoyarsky // FANNET TELECOM ISP NOC +7-8452-748-058 ext. 307 PGP finger print: 9FE1 9DD5 23D6 D684 0B8B 5285 57FC B854 C08F 93E2 From jochem at ripe.net Wed Aug 3 11:58:34 2011 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:58:34 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Response to queries on Charging Scheme Models In-Reply-To: <26CFA009-819C-427B-8D7E-3150DC3735B3@openminds.be> References: <7B6198A7-B820-4073-B92C-4E344F9E7C32@ripe.net> <26CFA009-819C-427B-8D7E-3150DC3735B3@openminds.be> Message-ID: <7B6CC0CF-4AED-4B15-AAC0-007E6E7B118A@ripe.net> Dear Frank and Sascha, Thank you for your comments. Below my response. > The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change? * Yes this will change with the final /8 policy . As soon as RIPE NCC reaches the final /8, the (minimum and maximum) allocation size will be a /22. New LIRs can only get a /22. > With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect? * It is a side effect and not a purpose. The XXS category is created for several reasons: - to facilitate existing Direct Assignment Users, with small assignments that currently have a direct contract with the RIPE NCC, to become members - to provide the option for small End Users that do not have a sponsoring LIR or do not want a sponsoring LIR, to become members for a reasonable fee - towards the future for Legacy Resource holders with small allocations/assignments i.e. /24 (class C) to become members for a reasonable fee > Do sponsored ASN count into the category? (eg, does a LIR with 1x /22 PA allocation but sponsoring 5 ASN now fall into 'Large'? * Yes sponsored ASNs count into the category. For an LIR to be in the Large category they should at least have 17 or more ASNs registered with their account (own infrastructure and sponsored ASNs) Regards, Jochem On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Frank Louwers wrote: > Jochem, > > Thank you for your added comments. Can you comment on two items: > > - The XXS category gets the "mini-LIR" less than a /21. Current minimum assignment is a /21. Does that change? > > - With very cheap XXS prices, and no strictly enforced multihoming requirements, it would seem a lot of "we need a /23 + 1 ASN" PI non-LIRs, will go that route. Is that the purpose of the XXS mini-LIR, or a side-effect? > > Regards, > > Frank > > > On 02 Aug 2011, at 16:37, Jochem de Ruig wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented. >> >> In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs. >> >> It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs. >> >> Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve. >> >> The service fees mentioned are based on: >> - The current expense forecast for 2012 >> - The current membership growth forecast >> - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve) >> >> Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow. >> >> Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1. >> >> We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Jochem de Ruig >> Chief Financial Officer >> RIPE NCC > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1735 bytes Desc: not available URL: From s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk Wed Aug 3 12:46:38 2011 From: s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk (Simon Lockhart) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:46:38 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> Message-ID: <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> On Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:30:49AM +0100, Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst wrote: > we would oppose any of the current models, because we consider them unfair. I agree that there is an element of unfairness here, but not necessarily for the same reasons as are being articulated by others. Kurt's response, whilst wordy, appears to be more in line with my views. > To be fair - in our opinion - a billing scheme should fulfil the following > requirements: > - continuous: No steep jumps. A LIR having allocation equivalent to /18 > should pay a bit more than a LIR having a /17. Why should an LIR having a /16 (I assume you mean /16 not /18) pay more than an LIR having a /17? Does it cost more for RIPE to support the LIR with a /16 than the LIR with a /17? Possibly the answer is yes, but it's not because they have a /17 rather than a /16. Consider these two scenarios: a) LIR_1 has been allocated a /16. They were allocated it several years ago. They haven't corresponded with the RIPE NCC in the last year or longer. b) LIR_2 goes back to the RIPE NCC every couple of months to request an additional allocation. Because they don't have a stable growth plan, and they are trying to be conservative with their IP usage, they only get a /21 each time they request an additional allocation. They've now accumulated a /17 worth of allocations. Which LIR should pay more? Certainly LIR_1 is costing RIPE a lot less than LIR_2. > - linear: An IP address should have a price. An LIR with a /12 allocation > uses 256 times the resources of an LIR with a /20. This should be > reflected in the fee. No, they don't. See above. > - cover the costs: I think the effort of RIPE is closely related to the > number of allocation requests. So each allocation should have a (on time) > fee. But this might prove impractical due to increased billing effort. How about the annual fee, calculated at the end of each calendar year is comprised of: - A base RIPE "membership" fee - A "maintenance" fee for each allocation to the LIR (e.g. EUR 50 per allocation, like the PI blocks) - A "allocation" fee for each allocation made in the previous 12 months. > - Major players pay EUR 5500 at most, which will be less than "peanuts" > for them. Not necessarily. Okay, most LIRs are also ISPs, but not all. You can't assume that for an LIR that a bigger allocation means a bigger revenue stream. Simon From erik at bais.name Wed Aug 3 13:10:36 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:10:36 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C6970E@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Christian & Marcel, Upfront, sorry for the rather lengthy reply. In regards of the 'wiwi' model, it does looks like a nice start for the payment, when looking at just IPv4 PA. But what about the other objects ? How would one look at current legacy holders ? Are those excluded or would they fall within the model for the number of resources they would actually have obtained through RIPE ? (at minimum a /22 read Euro 502 ). On the part of PI space, would you say, let's include that in the current list. In our particular case, we have a /21 and a /17 in PA. We have 10 PI objects requested for customers, for which we almost use a /19 in total. Currently that would cost us 500 euro (roughly as some of the assignments on PI are /23's with a /24.. but still let's keep it easy). We also have 8 AS's currently listed in the LIR portal, of which we actually use 1 for ourselves and the others are in use by customers. In the 'wiwi' table, we would fall with the /17 and the /21 in the /16 category. Including the PI space in the same table, we would still be below the /16 and we wouldn't have any additional cost. However I'm pretty sure that RIPE would much rather hand us PA instead of PI as each PI request need to be carefully documented / administrated, put to a name / company / address / requirement. And there is no additional income to off-set that labor. As a LIR we charge for requesting (handling) of PI space, regardless if it is approved by RIPE or not. ( We don't do charity in that respect.) If approved, the customer gets an invoice for the handling of the request to RIPE (600 euro one time) and a yearly maintenance fee of 200 euro for the initial /24. Each additional /24 cost 20 euro. So a customer with a /21 would get an initial invoice of 600 euro plus 340 euro for the maintenance. Still cheaper for that customer to deal with us and let us deal with RIPE than to sign-up with RIPE as a LIR and have to learn the lingo. ( mind you in the current situation, which breaks when the pool is going into the last /8.) On the part for handling of the resources on the side of RIPE, there is a cost per object and personally I think it should stay. Personally I would even advocate that both PI IPv4 and PI IPv6 should have a price tag around 200 Euro per object. That is purely because of the amount of time that is required to administrate the object and to make it clear to customers that this is not something one could just request for fun. Also, if someone could not cough up the cost for the PI, there is also no business case why they would need it in the first place. This also goes imho for starting to become a LIR. Now we will likely see an increase in the request of PI space in the last part of 2011. We already have more request for PI per month than let's say a year ago. And that will be the case is my estimation until RIPE is sold - out. That will likely be the moment where RIPE will see an increase in the number of LIR's, basically with the a similar profile that before would go for PI space. They would sign-up for a membership, get a /22 with close to no limitations on how to use it or qualifications, they buy their way into the LIR community and get served. Now on the part of the 2 smallest LIR memberships.. the baby sized LIRs, it would be my recommendation to skip the initial 2 steps in the 'wiwi table' and/or the 2 smallest LIR membership in the original Charging scheme 2012. Especially because the once the resource pool is empty and there will only be the last /8 to be divided, one should have a damn good reason imho to be able to tap into that. At least 1300 euro's worth of a yearly upkeep. Especially the initial year is taking more time and effort (by RIPE) from a LIR, so why lower the cost for more smaller entries and increase the workload ? In my view that doesn't scale from an economic point of view. Seeing that the XXS LIR membership would have IPv6 smaller than a /32 .. IPv4 < /22 and only a 250 euro setup fee.. Come on. Are there any kind of limitations that the board is planning in that model ? Like if you request more that you would need to pay the difference of the setup fee to become a full-member ? Could one actually request beyond the initial request IPv6 if they have < /32 or more AS's ? It is only allowed ( by 2010-02 as I recall ) that a LIR can only have 1 allocation from the final /8 on IPv4. 1.Allocations for LIRs from the last /8 On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following: 1.LIRs may only receive one allocation from this /8. The size of the allocation made under this policy will be exactly one /22. Anyway .. still lots of questions. Erik Bais From mick at webage.co.uk Wed Aug 3 11:41:54 2011 From: mick at webage.co.uk (Michael Gray) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:41:54 +0100 Subject: SV: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E39059B.8080402@gtsnextra.sk> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <6FED619A96B1C04D88541431819E4DA243E576EEB6@exchange01.It-afdelingen.local> <4E39059B.8080402@gtsnextra.sk> Message-ID: As a small LIR I like this idea too. However it does ignore the fact that for RIPE, a membership account will carry a fixed cost (administering that membership) and a variable cost (the number of IP addresses allocated). So large ISPs could argue that the below is not exactly "fair" because there is more than the number of IPs allocated to consider in the overall cost of membership. Regards M >>Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, >> >>this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: >> /22 EUR 502 >> /21 EUR 904 >> /20 EUR 1308 >> /19 EUR 1716 >> /18 EUR 2132 >> /17 EUR 2565 >> /16 EUR 3031 >> /15 EUR 3562 >> /14 EUR 4224 >> /13 EUR 5148 >> /12 EUR 6597 >> /11 EUR 9094 >> /10 EUR 13688 >> /9 EUR 22477 >> /8 EUR 39654 >> >>In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs >>(1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! >>I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. >>The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. >>I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! >> >>I prefer Christian's idea. >> >>Regards, >>Marcel Edler >>Gesch?ftsinhaber >> >>---- >>If you don't want to receive mails from the >>RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to >>your LIR Portal account at: >>http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. >>At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. >> >>---- >>If you don't want to receive mails from the >>RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to >>your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >>First click on General and then click on Edit. >>At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > >---- If you don't want to receive mails from the >RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to >your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >First click on General and then click on Edit. >At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 >Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6345 (20110802) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > > Michael Gray Managing Director Web Age t: +44 1292 571460 The Walled Garden, Cushats, Ayr, KA6 5LA | Company Number SC166764 | VAT No. GB 680-3292-36 From jorgen at hovland.cx Wed Aug 3 13:52:14 2011 From: jorgen at hovland.cx (=?windows-1252?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?=) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:52:14 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> Message-ID: <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> I think Wittenhorst proposed pricingmodel may be a good idea, but there are also several issues with it (as with the current pricing scheme). Our LIR would have to pay twice the amount that we are currently paying today with Wittenhorsts suggestion. Current price: ?1800 New price: ?3432 (2x /19's) Perhaps a pricing model shouldn't be based on prefixes but instead on the amount of ip-addresses in a non-linear model. IPv6 addresses and ASNs too. Paying for an "object" in a "database" is kindof silly as there are little or no expenses related to a database itself these days. If it would be up to me I would get 1x /18 instead of 2x /19 in the beginning, but RIPE NCC didn't approve on that. I shouldn't be punished because I am "saving" resources by using /19s instead of a /18 which was forced upon me by RIPE NCC. The amount of "objects" a prefix require in a proprietary database may also be subject to change at any time. On 08/03/11 11:23, James Blessing wrote: > On 02/08/2011 22:14, Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) wrote: > >> In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs >> (1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! >> I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. >> The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. >> I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! > > Er, what about the other db resources? ASNs, IPv6 space, PI etc? If > you want a per 'thing' pricing structure would it not be better to > charge: > > Membership X,000 PA (or X00) > db object Y PA (i.e. each object in the db be that a /24 or /8 of v4 > space, a /32 or an ASN) > > This would then better reflect the 'impact' on the db (it might also > encourage a better maintenance of the db) you could of course charge > different value for each type of object if the NCC can quantify the > 'impact cost' of each type of resource. > > J > From erik at bais.name Wed Aug 3 14:18:11 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:18:11 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C6970F@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi J?rgen, > Paying for an "object" in a "database" is kindof silly as there are > little or no expenses related to a database itself these days. If it > would be up to me I would get 1x /18 instead of 2x /19 in the > beginning, > but RIPE NCC didn't approve on that. I shouldn't be punished because I > am "saving" resources by using /19s instead of a /18 which was forced > upon me by RIPE NCC. I don't think you understand what the job of the RIPE hostmasters is about. It is not their role (or nature) to punish you, if you motivate why you require specific resources, you will get them (within the policies that are currently in place.) If you didn't provide the correct motivation, sobbing here doesn't make it better. The hostmasters only do their job, as it is our job to discuss and change the policies if we don't agree with the current model. Paying per object does actually reflect somewhat on the amount of labor/time/effort that the RIPE NCC workforce has to deal with you. Just my 2cp. Erik From s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk Wed Aug 3 14:21:48 2011 From: s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk (Simon Lockhart) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:21:48 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C6970F@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C6970F@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <20110803122148.GP1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> On Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:18:11PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote: > Paying per object does actually reflect somewhat on the amount of > labor/time/effort that the RIPE NCC workforce has to deal with you. Just for clarity, I believe we should be talking about allocations here, not objects in the database. I have 5 or 6 IPv4 allocations from RIPE. Within those, I probably have over 100 assignment objects recorded in the database. I think it would be fair to be charged based on the number of allocations, as each allocation requires time with the RIPE NCC to process the request. Simon From wiwi at progon.net Wed Aug 3 15:11:22 2011 From: wiwi at progon.net (Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:11:22 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> Message-ID: <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> Hello Simon, Hello Erik, Dear List, >> - linear: An IP address should have a price. An LIR with a /12 allocation >> uses 256 times the resources of an LIR with a /20. This should be >> reflected in the fee. > No, they don't. See above. Of course, they do ;-) IPv4 address space is a scarce and valuable resource now. And a /12 user occupies a lot more that limited resource than a /20 user does. If someone justifies a /12, Internet is obviously a major part of his business (or he's incredibly huge). And more importantly, he uses a major part of the limited resource. A "fee" of EUR 0.002 per IP is more than reasonable. > How about the annual fee, calculated at the end of each calendar year is comprised of: > > - A base RIPE "membership" fee > - A "maintenance" fee for each allocation to the LIR (e.g. EUR 50 per > allocation, like the PI blocks) > - A "allocation" fee for each allocation made in the previous 12 months. I strongly feel that there should be a fee on IP address consumption (e.g. the EUR 0.002/IP Address). I tried to avoid the "per usage" fee as it will make billing more complicated. I personally would not care about EUR 50 per allocation request. > But what about the other objects ? ASN: I would give away ASN for free. We have rules in place that define, when an ASN is justified. The supply of ASN is unlimited for all pratical means. Don't forget": In my proposal, every resource owner will pay at least EUR 500, so this should be covered. Besides, an ASN is not very useful on its own without associated address space. We could follow ARIN: Pay EUR 500 per ASN (and USD 100 per year once per organization). PI space: Just treat it as usual, either have a sponsoring entity, where is just counts as regular IP address space, or become an extra small LIR on your own. IPv6: Have no clear opinion on this. For now, I would give it away for free now and let's discuss the matter, when IPv6 traffic approaches 25% of IPv4 traffic. >> - Major players pay EUR 5500 at most, which will be less than "peanuts" >> for them. > Not necessarily. Okay, most LIRs are also ISPs, but not all. You can't assume > that for an LIR that a bigger allocation means a bigger revenue stream. Let's assume "less than /16" (2012: "large" category) for "major player". So you can justify more than 65k addresses, you have at least 65k services instances allocated to these addresses, which will need some kind of hardware. The EUR 0.002 will NEVER be an important part of your budget. We are a government funded, small "ISP" that's confined to the schoolyard. We're providing services for the schools in our district. The budget of our associated schools exceed EUR 40M/y easily. So don't tell me, that EUR 5k will be a problem for anyone who can honestly justify more than a /16. Just as a reminder, the comparison the RIPE2012 proposal and the ARIN fees: wiwi RIPE2012 ARIN /23 EUR 502 EUR 250 USD 1250 /22 EUR 502 EUR 750 USD 1250 /21 EUR 904 EUR 1750 USD 1250 /20 EUR 1308 EUR 1750 USD 2250 /19 EUR 1716 EUR 2500 USD 2250 /18 EUR 2132 EUR 2500 USD 4500 /17 EUR 2565 EUR 2500 USD 4500 /16 EUR 3031 EUR 2500 USD 4500 /15 EUR 3562 EUR 5000 USD 9000 /14 EUR 4224 EUR 5000 USD 9000 /13 EUR 5148 EUR 5000 USD 14000 /12 EUR 6597 EUR 5000 USD 14000 /11 EUR 9094 EUR 7500 USD 14000 /10 EUR 13688 EUR 7500 USD 14000 /9 EUR 22477 EUR 7500 USD 14000 /8 EUR 39654 EUR 15000 USD 14000 Calculation is simple: EUR 500 + ((log2(#IPv4)-10)*EUR 400+(EUR 0.002*#IPv4). My assumptions were: EUR 15M with 7100 members results in EUR 2100 need per member and per year in average, so a /18+ will pay more than the average share. Having members with less than EUR 500 fee is not useful, commercially. ...a and get me right, please: RIPE does a great job, no doubt. I do NOT want to deplete RIPE of money. Greetings from rainy Switzerland wiwi From jj at anexia.at Wed Aug 3 15:09:16 2011 From: jj at anexia.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Jaritsch?=) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:09:16 +0200 Subject: AW: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <20110803122148.GP1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C6970F@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20110803122148.GP1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> Message-ID: <7689A3143F9B7B4D9C1B3CD68913FFAB4CFE5A@anexia-2k3.ANEXIA.local> Hi Simon, you can view your as-usage here: http://www.db.ripe.net/cgi-bin/webasused.pl.cgi Mit freundlichen Gr??en // best regards J?rgen Jaritsch, Leitung Technik (CTO), Prokurist (registered manager) ___________________________________ ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: 0043 463 208501-300 Telefax: 0043 463 208502 E-Mail: jj at anexia.at Web: http://www.anexia.at ___________________________________ > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Simon Lockhart > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. August 2011 14:22 > An: Erik Bais > Cc: J?rgen Hovland; members-discuss at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst > > On Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:18:11PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote: > > Paying per object does actually reflect somewhat on the amount of > > labor/time/effort that the RIPE NCC workforce has to deal with you. > > Just for clarity, I believe we should be talking about allocations here, not > objects in the database. > > I have 5 or 6 IPv4 allocations from RIPE. Within those, I probably have over > 100 assignment objects recorded in the database. > > I think it would be fair to be charged based on the number of allocations, as > each allocation requires time with the RIPE NCC to process the request. > > Simon > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, > please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. From fweimer at bfk.de Wed Aug 3 15:31:46 2011 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:31:46 +0000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> (Christian Wittenhorst's message of "Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:11:22 +0200") References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> Message-ID: <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Christian Wittenhorst: > Of course, they do ;-) IPv4 address space is a scarce and valuable > resource now. And a /12 user occupies a lot more that limited resource > than a /20 user does. > > If someone justifies a /12, Internet is obviously a major part of his > business (or he's incredibly huge). And more importantly, he uses a > major part of the limited resource. A "fee" of EUR 0.002 per IP is > more than reasonable. I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From wiwi at progon.net Wed Aug 3 16:03:07 2011 From: wiwi at progon.net (Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:03:07 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: > I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space > tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other > RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to the big player. Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: /22 0.490 /21 0.441 /20 0.319 /19 0.210 /18 0.130 /17 0.078 /16 0.046 /15 0.027 /14 0.016 /13 0.010 /12 0.006 /11 0.004 /10 0.003 /9 0.003 /8 0.002 Best regards, wiwi From mick at webage.co.uk Wed Aug 3 16:45:36 2011 From: mick at webage.co.uk (Michael Gray) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:45:36 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> Message-ID: This covers my concern about the fixed cost of membership. So right behind this proposal wiwi Michael Gray Webage At 15:03 03/08/2011, Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst wrote: >On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >>I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address >>space tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs >>and other RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. >It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote >address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being >some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the >RIPE region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR >0.002 - the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even >unfair to the big player. > >Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: > >/22 0.490 >/21 0.441 >/20 0.319 >/19 0.210 >/18 0.130 >/17 0.078 >/16 0.046 >/15 0.027 >/14 0.016 >/13 0.010 >/12 0.006 >/11 0.004 >/10 0.003 >/9 0.003 >/8 0.002 > >Best regards, > > wiwi > >---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >First click on General and then click on Edit. >At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 6347 (20110803) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > > Michael Gray Managing Director Web Age t: +44 1292 571460 The Walled Garden, Cushats, Ayr, KA6 5LA | Company Number SC166764 | VAT No. GB 680-3292-36 From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Aug 3 16:55:47 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:55:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> Message-ID: ok, first of all, basing a billing model on the soon-to-be-obsolete-anyway ipv4, is completely retarded and a waste of time, secondly, keep in mind that most of the "big ipv4 players" are PRE-RIR LEGACY blocks anyway, they don't pay anything in the current model anyway, either with arin or with ripe. (registered < 1995) all of the big (firewalled) office networks at multinationals, etc which is where most of the ipv4 space is wasted. furthermore, the "e-class" space is completely unused (244/8 upwards) "experimental use" (just take what you want?!) if you want to recover ipv4 addresses, have a looksie at the 6 or so DoD ranges which are not announced -at all- except for a single /23 or so :P, and at companies like ford and other ones that have /8's.. within the RIPE region, several multinationals with pre-rir larger blocks come to mind (we won't mention names, but a lot of them are not even routed, and if they're routed, they could just as well use NAT ;) but personally, i neither see any reason to change the billing model to "conserve ipv4 space", nor to "recover" ipv4 addresses, nor to keep it artificially alive in any other way... you have ipv6, now use it. if you "need" ipv4, you can just take some of the "e-class" space for all i'm concerned and announce it, for such a short period of time between all access networks being -forced- to support ipv6 by their customer base and google and facebook and akamai and the likes -finally- switching on ipv6 permanently, i'm quite sure the internet can survive on that unregulated stuff. (after a while, nobody wants ipv4 anymore anyway, as there is no need for it anymore the moment the major content parties also figure it out) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst wrote: > On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space tax. >> Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other RIPE >> activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. > It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote address > space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being some 800M IP > addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE region are EUR > 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - the 2010 budget of RIPE > being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to the big player. > > Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: > > /22 0.490 > /21 0.441 > /20 0.319 > /19 0.210 > /18 0.130 > /17 0.078 > /16 0.046 > /15 0.027 > /14 0.016 > /13 0.010 > /12 0.006 > /11 0.004 > /10 0.003 > /9 0.003 > /8 0.002 > > Best regards, > > wiwi > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss > list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Aug 3 16:57:51 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> Message-ID: nice idea, but you should have come up with it 15 years ago, now is a bit late :P -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Michael Gray wrote: > > This covers my concern about the fixed cost of membership. > So right behind this proposal wiwi > > Michael Gray > Webage > > At 15:03 03/08/2011, Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst wrote: >> On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space tax. >>> Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other RIPE >>> activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. >> It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote address >> space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being some 800M IP >> addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE region are EUR >> 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - the 2010 budget of >> RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to the big player. >> >> Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: >> >> /22 0.490 >> /21 0.441 >> /20 0.319 >> /19 0.210 >> /18 0.130 >> /17 0.078 >> /16 0.046 >> /15 0.027 >> /14 0.016 >> /13 0.010 >> /12 0.006 >> /11 0.004 >> /10 0.003 >> /9 0.003 >> /8 0.002 >> >> Best regards, >> >> wiwi >> >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss >> list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >> http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >> First click on General and then click on Edit. >> At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 6347 (20110803) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> > > Michael Gray > Managing Director > Web Age > t: +44 1292 571460 > > The Walled Garden, Cushats, Ayr, KA6 5LA | Company Number SC166764 | > VAT No. GB 680-3292-36 > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss > list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. From medler at optimate-server.de Wed Aug 3 20:38:58 2011 From: medler at optimate-server.de (Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de)) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 20:38:58 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> Message-ID: <4E3995C2.5070106@optimate-server.de> Hi J?rgen, > Paying for an "object" in a "database" is kindof silly as there are > little or no expenses related to a database itself these days. If it > would be up to me I would get 1x /18 instead of 2x /19 in the > beginning, > but RIPE NCC didn't approve on that. I shouldn't be punished because I > am "saving" resources by using /19s instead of a /18 which was forced > upon me by RIPE NCC. 2x/19 are equivalent to 1x/18 -> 2132 Euro I have 1x/17, 2x/18, 1x/19 and its little bit more than /16, so I have to pay for /15 -> 3562 Euro PI-Space should not count in this Charging Scheme, it should costs 50 Euro/year like now. AS 50Euro/year too. Regards, Marcel Edler From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Aug 3 21:48:00 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 19:48:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E3995C2.5070106@optimate-server.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> <4E3995C2.5070106@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: > > 2x/19 are equivalent to 1x/18 -> 2132 Euro > > I have 1x/17, 2x/18, 1x/19 and its little bit more than /16, so I have > to pay for /15 -> 3562 Euro > > PI-Space should not count in this Charging Scheme, it should costs 50 > Euro/year like now. AS 50Euro/year too. once again, this completely leaves ipv6 out of consideration, where is the fixed part anyway? or are lirs that don't want any resources but just votes in ripe "free" all of a sudden? in which case, i'll take 20000 lirs please, so i can outvote you and fix the billing scheme again ;P ripe is NOT just a database for IPV4... its membership fees, are not and should not be directly translated into an amount of ipv4 addresses. your proposal ignores: fixed membership fees for the organisational part which applies in case of "empty lirs that just want the votes", as well as for ipv6, which i find no mention of anywhere in your proposal. (guess what, when ipv4 runs out, there will be a shitload of new ipv6 only lirs, as there simply is no ipv4 left to give to them ;) in a few years, there will be plenty ipv6 only lirs, what would they pay? 50 euros for the asn and 50 euros for the /30-/32 ? having them pay only 100 euros and everyone else with (by then obsolete) ipv4 space would be a bit weird wouldn't it... furthermore, they'd start to riot when we then "correct" the billing scheme again and they all of a sudden also have to pay their equal share. (going up from 100 euros to around 2000 euros in one go, without providing them with any additional services - let the riots commence ;) while in fact, they would require an equal part of the organisational costs of ripe to maintain them, as ipv4 lirs. the whole billing scheme is just there to "operate ripe".. its supposed to cover the "operating costs" of ripe, not to translate directly into "how many ipv4 ips you have registered with ripe" (keep in mind, ripe is just a database, you can announce whatever you want anyway, just that its more politically correct towards other isps to communicate it with ripe, as someone has to pay for their offices and staff etc, someone sometime a long long time ago made up this billing model thingy ;) the "database operating costs" and the organisation costs do not translate in any way to the "number of ipv4 addresses" one holds. i'd say we just stick with the current billing model for the time ipv4 is still relevant... then work out a new one later on, when nobody -needs- ipv4 anymore anyway (the moment google and facebook go, everyone will go ;) i can perfectly well see a scenario where it no longer makes sense to keep track of ipv4 (and within a few months even)... and remember kids, ipv4 wasn't the "first" protocol of the internet, the internet and its main part, ARPA, has seen several other protocols, and includes several other networks, some of which ran completely different stuff before gatewaying to "the internet", thereby becoming part of it, ip based or not (compuserve anyone?) (our companies originating from packet radio, which still mostly runs x.25 (with or without ipv4 over it) for example ;) now, there once were databases keeping track of x.25 node names on packet radio (whitepages), should they have been on a paid basis, do you think people would still want to pay for those obsolete registrations nowadays? do you still pay compuserve for your "GO XXXXXXX" name? would you still pay for domain name registrations once only a very few dusty old nerds still use dns ? i don't think it makes much sense to base ripes billing model on ipv4... IT WILL RUN OUT IN A FEW MONTHS ANYWAY, A NEW BILLING MODEL WON'T STOP THAT (especially not since LEGACY PRE-RIR ranges cannot be contractually forced to pay anyway, plus, that kind of company would not care about a few 10000 more or less anyway and still keep the ranges ;) ipv4_having_run_out && google_and_facebook_and_akamai_supporting_v6 == instant force of all access networks to switch -now- == forcing the rest of the content to do the same (porn). any day now... and you want to go through the process of re-building ripes billing model, based on ipv4... in 2011... come back 15 years ago, when ipv4 was still relevant, if we do this now, we have to re-do the thing in a few months time anyway. > > Regards, > Marcel Edler > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, > please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > From chris at filoo.de Wed Aug 3 22:48:52 2011 From: chris at filoo.de (Christopher Kunz) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:48:52 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> <4E3995C2.5070106@optimate-server.de> Message-ID: <4E39B434.6070300@filoo.de> Hey, > once again, this completely leaves ipv6 out of consideration, where is Taking IPv6 into consideration doesn't change the overall equation a lot, IMHO. Let's not forget that we're talking about the billing scheme for one year only. All the cards are dealt anew in mid-2012, when the 2013 charging scheme is discussed. I presume more weight will be added to IPv6 allocations as soon as they become more relevant. I completely agree with the notion that IPv4 (and therefore, billing per IPv4 network in RIPE) will become irrelevant eventually, but we're not there yet [tm]. And although it seems to be en vogue for a couple of people to imply that everyone and their social network will switch to native IPv6 as soon as the last /8 is distributed, I believe this is a naive assumption. Gru?, --ck -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Gesch?ftsf?hrer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris at filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 Moltkestra?e 25a 33330 G?tersloh, Germany HRB4355, AG G?tersloh Gesch?ftsf?hrer: S.Grewing, J.Rehp?hler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh From mvh at hosteurope.de Wed Aug 3 23:42:15 2011 From: mvh at hosteurope.de (Malte von dem Hagen) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 23:42:15 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E39B434.6070300@filoo.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> <4E3995C2.5070106@optimate-server.de> <4E39B434.6070300@filoo.de> Message-ID: <4E39C0B7.5090306@hosteurope.de> Hi, Am 03.08.11 22:48, schrieb Christopher Kunz: >> once again, this completely leaves ipv6 out of consideration, where is > > Taking IPv6 into consideration doesn't change the overall equation a > lot, IMHO. what also gets widely ignored by many (not all, though) in this discussion is that RIPE/RIPE NCC is not just an IP dealer, but a whole lot more - don't forget all the training courses (which esp. are targeted for new and therefore mostly small members), all the cool stuff done by RIPE Labs, representation, etc. pp. In the end, just counting IPv4 addresses seems a bit _too simple_ to me. [x] spent 2? Malte -- Malte von dem Hagen Head of Network Engineering & Operations ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Host Europe GmbH - http://www.hosteurope.de Welserstra?e 14 - 51149 K?ln - Germany Telefon: 0800 467 8387 - Fax: +49 180 5 66 3233 (*) HRB 28495 Amtsgericht K?ln - USt-IdNr.: DE187370678 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Patrick Pulverm?ller, Thomas Vollrath (*) 0,14 EUR/Min. aus dem dt. Festnetz; maximal 0,42 EUR/Min. aus den dt. Mobilfunknetzen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 259 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From chris at filoo.de Thu Aug 4 00:09:22 2011 From: chris at filoo.de (Christopher Kunz) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:09:22 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <4E39C0B7.5090306@hosteurope.de> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> <4E3995C2.5070106@optimate-server.de> <4E39B434.6070300@filoo.de> <4E39C0B7.5090306@hosteurope.de> Message-ID: <4E39C712.6050700@filoo.de> Hi, > In the end, just counting IPv4 addresses seems a bit _too simple_ to me. > Yes. I had written a small rant about how many participants in this discussion seem to see RIPE purely as a source of IP addresses and that their only concern seems to be to minimize the "cost per address". This is obviously a bit narrow-minded. 1. The yearly charges for RIPE membership are a tiny fraction of even the smaller LIRs' annual spendings. Although I support choosing a fair charging scheme just like the next guy, I feel that my money is well spent with the RIPE membership. 2. As stated before, the database is a tiny fraction of what RIPE does. Apart from the obvious benefits, I think the political work of RIPE is an often-overlooked, but very important aspect. Gru?, --ck -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Gesch?ftsf?hrer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris at filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 Moltkestra?e 25a 33330 G?tersloh, Germany HRB4355, AG G?tersloh Gesch?ftsf?hrer: S.Grewing, J.Rehp?hler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh From chris at filoo.de Thu Aug 4 00:22:33 2011 From: chris at filoo.de (Christopher Kunz) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:22:33 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Autoresponders and ticket systems Message-ID: <4E39CA29.5090901@filoo.de> Hi, after taking part in the discussion, the following things happened: 1. I'm informed that Vicente Valero is out of the office. Twice. 2. I am the assignee of tickets #10982 and #10984 (probably 10985, after this message) in Private Layer Inc.'s ticket system. 3. I have issued two orders with Telekom's technical services. 4. I received two empty replies from . 5. Anexia GmbH opened two tickets for me as well (663571, 148322). 6. Last, but not least, I now have access to the Solutios support center. To all colleagues involved in this, would you please: a) cancel tickets, accounts and whatever my postings triggered in your automatic systems. b) Remove my e-mail address from your databases immediately. c) Remove your auto-responding robots from this mailing list. At least make them honor "Precedence: bulk" headers. Thanks, Regards, and good night. --ck -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Gesch?ftsf?hrer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris at filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 Moltkestra?e 25a 33330 G?tersloh, Germany HRB4355, AG G?tersloh Gesch?ftsf?hrer: S.Grewing, J.Rehp?hler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh From danny at danysek.cz Thu Aug 4 10:39:28 2011 From: danny at danysek.cz (Daniel Suchy) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:39:28 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> Message-ID: <4E3A5AC0.6070606@danysek.cz> On 08/03/2011 12:46 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote: > Why should an LIR having a /16 (I assume you mean /16 not /18) pay more than an > LIR having a /17? Does it cost more for RIPE to support the LIR with a /16 than > the LIR with a /17? Possibly the answer is yes, but it's not because they have > a /17 rather than a /16. One of expected RIPE NCC tasks is analysing proper use of allocated resources by each LIR. Mainly, this happens when LIR asks for new resources - but also in other case like LIR audits. And analysis of /16 block is more exacting than /17 analysis. Mentioned audits aren't classic LIR support - members usually doesn't ask for their audits and of course, these audit costs some money :-) With regards, Daniel From s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk Thu Aug 4 11:39:11 2011 From: s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk (Simon Lockhart) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 10:39:11 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E3A5AC0.6070606@danysek.cz> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A5AC0.6070606@danysek.cz> Message-ID: <20110804093911.GS1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> On Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:39:28AM +0100, Daniel Suchy wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:46 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote: > > Why should an LIR having a /16 (I assume you mean /16 not /18) pay more > > than an LIR having a /17? Does it cost more for RIPE to support the LIR > > with a /16 than the LIR with a /17? Possibly the answer is yes, but it's > > not because they have a /17 rather than a /16. > > One of expected RIPE NCC tasks is analysing proper use of allocated > resources by each LIR. Mainly, this happens when LIR asks for new > resources - but also in other case like LIR audits. And analysis of /16 > block is more exacting than /17 analysis. > > Mentioned audits aren't classic LIR support - members usually doesn't > ask for their audits and of course, these audit costs some money :-) Oh, indeed, and I see that this is part of what either the "per allocation" fee should cover. I strongly believe that RIPE should not set a "price per IP", as their role is not to create some sort of commercial marketplace for internet objects (be they v4 or v6, or other sorts of things which RIPE allocate like ASNs), but rather to be the registry for these allocated objects. Yes, I accept that a larger allocation request will take more of RIPEs time than a smaller allocation, but we should agree whether a one-size-fits-all pricing model is what we want, or some sort of sliding scale based on the amount of effort which goes into evaluating and registering an allocation request. For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices completely made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use): Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000 Per allocation costs: First Year Subsequent Years IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200 IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50 ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50 Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50 In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE services - Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to have a "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one IPv4, one IPv6 and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE meetings). An analogy here is IX charging (I'll use LINX as an example, as it's the one I'm closest to). You pay a base 'membership fee'. The ports you take on the exchange are like allocations - they come in broad sizings - 100M, 1G, 10G. LINX tried usage based charging (i.e. like paying per IP), and it was hard to bill, and disliked by the members. There's a higher cost to the IX when you first take a port (i.e. get an allocation) - install fee plus service fees - but the ongoing running costs - just service fees - are lower because there's less work to do. Simon From jblessing at llnw.com Thu Aug 4 11:48:11 2011 From: jblessing at llnw.com (James Blessing) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:48:11 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <20110804093911.GS1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A5AC0.6070606@danysek.cz> <20110804093911.GS1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> Message-ID: <4E3A6ADB.8060807@llnw.com> On 04/08/2011 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote: > For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices completely > made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use): > > Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000 > > Per allocation costs: > First Year Subsequent Years > IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 > IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 > IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 > IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 > IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200 > > IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 > IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50 > > ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50 > > Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50 > > In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE services - > Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to have a > "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one IPv4, one IPv6 > and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE meetings). This is a much better structure for the membership fees (and easy for a new/existing member to calculate) might be easier to split the first year into a 'successful application fee' and annual fee. The other thing could be to include 1 ASN, 1 v4 and 1 v6 (regardless of size) in the standard membership fee and then have another category which covered small object holders with out the 'package'. Would be nice to see how this worked with 'real numbers' rather than holding ones. J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Thu Aug 4 15:09:24 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:09:24 -0400 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E3A6ADB.8060807@llnw.com> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A5AC0.6070606@danysek.cz> <20110804093911.GS1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A6ADB.8060807@llnw.com> Message-ID: <4E3A9A04.60204@speednic.eu> On 04/08/2011 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote: > >> For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices >> completely >> made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use): >> >> Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000 >> >> Per allocation costs: >> First Year Subsequent Years >> IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 >> IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 >> IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 >> IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 >> IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200 >> >> IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 >> IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50 >> >> ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50 >> >> Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50 >> >> In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE >> services - >> Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to have a >> "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one IPv4, >> one IPv6 >> and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE meetings). I think a "usage-membership-fee" would be much better as a "fix-based-fee" because in relation to a LIR in Medium category and one in high one the smaller LIRs will be a lot more than he will use. I guess a "usage" depending on the resouces who will be used is much better because it should not be that a big company which have 100times more IP addresses will pay only the double price as a other LIR in a smaller category. So the fairnest way is to say - fixed membership fee (based on meetings, personal costs, etc.) and a resouce usage fee (based on IPv4 and IPv6 addresses). /19 = 8160 IP - so like 1 IP for 0,01 = 81,6 Euro, if one has a /16 hee will pay 65025 IP = 650,25 Euro and so on. Only a fee which will reflect the resources will be fine because otherwise each bigger LIR will not be carefull with IPv4 addresses and will order even more because the cost will be the same. bye alex From wiwi at progon.net Thu Aug 4 13:12:39 2011 From: wiwi at progon.net (Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:12:39 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E3A6ADB.8060807@llnw.com> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A5AC0.6070606@danysek.cz> <20110804093911.GS1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A6ADB.8060807@llnw.com> Message-ID: <4E3A7EA7.40107@progon.net> On 2011-08-04 11:48, James Blessing wrote: > On 04/08/2011 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote: > >> For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices >> completely >> made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use): >> >> Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000 >> >> Per allocation costs: >> First Year Subsequent Years >> IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 >> IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 >> IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 >> IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 >> IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200 >> >> IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 >> IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50 >> >> ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50 >> >> Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50 >> >> In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE >> services - >> Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to have a >> "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one IPv4, >> one IPv6 >> and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE meetings). > > This is a much better structure for the membership fees (and easy for > a new/existing member to calculate) might be easier to split the first > year into a 'successful application fee' and annual fee. > > The other thing could be to include 1 ASN, 1 v4 and 1 v6 (regardless > of size) in the standard membership fee and then have another category > which covered small object holders with out the 'package'. > > Would be nice to see how this worked with 'real numbers' rather than > holding ones. Some facts: - 44% of all members are in the /21-/20 range - 43% are in the /19-/16 range - 10% are /15 or larger - We need to raise EUR 18M (2011 Budget) - There are 7700 member, so the average fee must be EUR 2330/y. - RIPE wants to encourage small "operations" to join RIPE for little money (XS and XSS categories). - One of the bigger members (de.telekom) has about 30 IPv4 allocation, being equivalent to a bit less than a /7. fr.telecom has about 30 allocations equivalent to a /7.5. - The average /18 member seems to hold 1 to 6 IPv4 allocation, which an average around 3 IPv4 allocations. (small sample, so use with caution, please) - RIPE has 22200 ASN. Source: Interpretation: - a /18 would have to pay around EUR 2300, otherwise there will be no chance of getting the required money. - the base membership fee should be around EUR 250-500, otherwise to high for XXS and XS - the scheme should be fair for the /21-/16 range, they represent 87% of the members and will have to raise 75%+ of the budget in any reasonable scheme. - charging ASN is not really useful, it would need EUR 80/y to cover only 10% of the budget. - There will be almost no new allocations in the near future, so the "subsequent year" amount should cover the costs. James Blessing's scheme would look like: Base Fee: EUR 500 (let's assume 1 allocation IPv4+IPv6 includes, 1 ASN) EUR 800 for a /21 to /18 allocation annually. Otherwise the "typical" /18 would not pay enough to cover the costs. A really large LIR will have to pay 30*EUR 800, about EUR 24k, anyway. Best regards, wiwi From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Thu Aug 4 15:43:30 2011 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:43:30 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> Message-ID: <4E3AA202.10001@level7.it> Hi all, I disagree with this approach for two reasons: 1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002 2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come. I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay less than a small operator. My concern is that: a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators. b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW IPv4 addresses in 2014?) Just my 2 euro cents. > On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space >> tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other >> RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. > It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote > address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being some > 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE region > are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - the 2010 > budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to the big > player. > > Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: > > /22 0.490 > /21 0.441 > /20 0.319 > /19 0.210 > /18 0.130 > /17 0.078 > /16 0.046 > /15 0.027 > /14 0.016 > /13 0.010 > /12 0.006 > /11 0.004 > /10 0.003 > /9 0.003 > /8 0.002 > > Best regards, > > wiwi > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it From tkor at hol.net Thu Aug 4 16:40:39 2011 From: tkor at hol.net (Kordogiannis Themistoklis) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:40:39 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E3A9A04.60204@speednic.eu> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A5AC0.6070606@danysek.cz> <20110804093911.GS1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A6ADB.8060807@llnw.com> <4E3A9A04.60204@speednic.eu> Message-ID: <5E40BD0E5B5C0946BFBE42067ABBF85526233B28A5@HOLNETMAIL00.hol.net> After two days of discussion I'm still trying to find out with all these emails whether the scope is 1) to stop people from asking for IPs by means of charging 2) Need to raise more money and try to find a way to relate that to IP's And also if 3) we'll apply this also to v6 later or just for short term v4? (just for next year??) In the first case my question is why this is raised now and not since 2010 or even 2009 pricing policy when it was discussed to change the overall process due to v4 shortage. We should have done that right then and then. Even more, usage based pricing, it's like punishing a LIR for being good in their market And are able to attract customers. I'm not even considering what was said with regard to objects in the database, since someone that sells service with single IP to each customer, only needs one object in the DB (or a few for each IP block, but no direct link/relation between customer and DB objects), in relation to a LIR that needs to maintain multiple object - one per customer - for larger allocations. I don't really believe LIR's with 100s of object vs small with 10s of objects is something new, it's been this way all these years, Hense the categories of charging. I can understand also what was said about future LIR's that will come into the market After 2013/2014, when for sure/probably(?) RIPE will have no more v4, so they'll be forced To provide only v6 services, but why "punishing" all existing LIRs/SPs/companies because of slow adaptation of v6? (I mean look at the new issue that has come up with Apple OS's that chooses v4 vs v6 depending on delays on the network!!!!!!!!! - NOT happy-eyeballs approach, talk about slow down insentives). And what about companies that have i.e. a /16 and with today's rules don't need more than a /26 or even a /27 ( I know of at least one or two in my region). I have to provide tones of statistics to get a /15,/16 for broadband And there are these companies that have /17,/16 for the corporate offices doing NAT and only 1% of their space is used. In the second case, I can understand the need to revisit charges due to possible Increased/new costs on the part of the NCC and it's operations, but again I can't see the relation with the size of address space one company has, with regard to differentiating from the existing method that is. On the other hand maybe I've been lost in all these emails and completely lost track of the reasoning!!! BR Themis > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 4:09 PM > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > On 04/08/2011 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote: > > > >> For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices > >> completely > >> made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use): > >> > >> Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000 > >> > >> Per allocation costs: > >> First Year Subsequent Years > >> IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 > >> IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 > >> IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 > >> IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 > >> IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200 > >> > >> IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 > >> IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50 > >> > >> ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50 > >> > >> Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50 > >> > >> In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE > >> services - > >> Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to > have a > >> "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one > IPv4, > >> one IPv6 > >> and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE > meetings). > > I think a "usage-membership-fee" would be much better as a > "fix-based-fee" because in relation to a LIR in Medium category and one > in high one the smaller LIRs will be a lot more than he will use. > > I guess a "usage" depending on the resouces who will be used is much > better because it should not be that a big company which have 100times > more IP addresses will pay only the double price as a other LIR in a > smaller category. > > So the fairnest way is to say - fixed membership fee (based on > meetings, > personal costs, etc.) and a resouce usage fee (based on IPv4 and IPv6 > addresses). /19 = 8160 IP - so like 1 IP for 0,01 = 81,6 Euro, if one > has a /16 hee will pay 65025 IP = 650,25 Euro and so on. > > Only a fee which will reflect the resources will be fine because > otherwise each bigger LIR will not be carefull with IPv4 addresses and > will order even more because the cost will be the same. > > bye alex > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss > list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. From noreply at ripe.net Thu Aug 4 16:40:28 2011 From: noreply at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:40:28 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] NRO NC Call for Nominations - RIPE NCC Service Region Message-ID: <4E3AAF5C.50701@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, There is a call for nominations from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC). The term of Wilfried Woeber, who was appointed to the NRO NC by the RIPE NCC Executive Board in October 2008, ends on 31 December 2011. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will select one representative from the nominees to serve a three-year term on the NRO NCC beginning 1 January 2012. The decision of the Executive Board will be announced at the RIPE 63 Meeting, which will be held in Vienna from 31 October-4 November 2011. The deadline for nominations is 5 October 2011. Any individual residing within the RIPE NCC service region is eligible for nomination, except Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff members. Self-nominations are permitted. There is no limit on the amount of terms someone can serve on the NRO NC. All nominees may submit a written statement in support of their nomination for publication on the RIPE NCC website. Other individuals may express support for nominated individuals that will be published on the RIPE NCC website. Details on how to make nominations or expressions of support are available at: http://www.ripe.net/nronc2011-process Expressions of support will also be published on the RIPE NCC website. To find out more about the NRO NC and the election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/nronc2011 Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC Important Dates: 5 October 2011: Deadline for NRO NC nominations 7 October 2011: Deadline for all confirmed nominations to be posted on the RIPE NCC website 31 October-4 November 2011: Result of selection announced at RIPE 63 Meeting in Vienna From sven at cb3rob.net Thu Aug 4 16:57:32 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <5E40BD0E5B5C0946BFBE42067ABBF85526233B28A5@HOLNETMAIL00.hol.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A5AC0.6070606@danysek.cz> <20110804093911.GS1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3A6ADB.8060807@llnw.com> <4E3A9A04.60204@speednic.eu> <5E40BD0E5B5C0946BFBE42067ABBF85526233B28A5@HOLNETMAIL00.hol.net> Message-ID: > 2009 pricing policy when it was discussed to change the overall process > due to v4 shortage. > We should have done that right then and then. actually, that was a policy from 2007 already, which only took effect 2009/2010 -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Kordogiannis Themistoklis wrote: > After two days of discussion I'm still trying to find out with all these > emails whether the scope is > 1) to stop people from asking for IPs by means of charging > 2) Need to raise more money and try to find a way to relate that to IP's > > And also if > 3) we'll apply this also to v6 later or just for short term v4? (just for next year??) > > In the first case my question is why this is raised now and not since 2010 or even > 2009 pricing policy when it was discussed to change the overall process due to v4 shortage. > We should have done that right then and then. > > Even more, usage based pricing, it's like punishing a LIR for being good in their market > And are able to attract customers. I'm not even considering what was said with regard > to objects in the database, since someone that sells service with single IP to each customer, > only needs one object in the DB (or a few for each IP block, but no direct link/relation > between customer and DB objects), in relation to a LIR that needs to maintain multiple > object - one per customer - for larger allocations. I don't really believe LIR's with > 100s of object vs small with 10s of objects is something new, it's been this way all these years, > Hense the categories of charging. > > I can understand also what was said about future LIR's that will come into the market > After 2013/2014, when for sure/probably(?) RIPE will have no more v4, so they'll be forced > To provide only v6 services, but why "punishing" all existing LIRs/SPs/companies > because of slow adaptation of v6? (I mean look at the new issue that has come up with > Apple OS's that chooses v4 vs v6 depending on delays on the network!!!!!!!!! - NOT happy-eyeballs approach, > talk about slow down insentives). > > And what about companies that have i.e. a /16 and with today's rules don't need more than a /26 or even a /27 > ( I know of at least one or two in my region). I have to provide tones of statistics to get a /15,/16 for broadband > And there are these companies that have /17,/16 for the corporate offices doing NAT and only 1% of their space is used. > > In the second case, I can understand the need to revisit charges due to possible > Increased/new costs on the part of the NCC and it's operations, but again I can't see the > relation with the size of address space one company has, with regard to differentiating > from the existing method that is. > > On the other hand maybe I've been lost in all these emails and completely lost track of the reasoning!!! > > BR > Themis > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- >> admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling >> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 4:09 PM >> To: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >> >> On 04/08/2011 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote: >>> >>>> For example, here's another pricing model which could work (prices >>>> completely >>>> made up on the spot, so don't judge fairness on the numbers I use): >>>> >>>> Membership Fee (per year): EUR 1000 >>>> >>>> Per allocation costs: >>>> First Year Subsequent Years >>>> IPv4 (up to /22): EUR 100 EUR 50 >>>> IPv4 (/21 to /20): EUR 200 EUR 50 >>>> IPv4 (/19 to /16): EUR 400 EUR 100 >>>> IPv4 (/15 to /12): EUR 800 EUR 100 >>>> IPv4 (over /12): EUR 1500 EUR 200 >>>> >>>> IPv6 (/32): EUR 100 EUR 50 >>>> IPv6 (Over /32): EUR 400 EUR 50 >>>> >>>> ASN: EUR 100 EUR 50 >>>> >>>> Other objects: EUR 400 EUR 50 >>>> >>>> In here, the membership fee is designed to cover all the other RIPE >>>> services - >>>> Atlas, Labs, Meetings, etc, etc. There is of course the option to >> have a >>>> "Membership Lite" at a reduced rate with restrictions (only one >> IPv4, >>>> one IPv6 >>>> and one ASN allocation, no access to other services or RIPE >> meetings). >> >> I think a "usage-membership-fee" would be much better as a >> "fix-based-fee" because in relation to a LIR in Medium category and one >> in high one the smaller LIRs will be a lot more than he will use. >> >> I guess a "usage" depending on the resouces who will be used is much >> better because it should not be that a big company which have 100times >> more IP addresses will pay only the double price as a other LIR in a >> smaller category. >> >> So the fairnest way is to say - fixed membership fee (based on >> meetings, >> personal costs, etc.) and a resouce usage fee (based on IPv4 and IPv6 >> addresses). /19 = 8160 IP - so like 1 IP for 0,01 = 81,6 Euro, if one >> has a /16 hee will pay 65025 IP = 650,25 Euro and so on. >> >> Only a fee which will reflect the resources will be fine because >> otherwise each bigger LIR will not be carefull with IPv4 addresses and >> will order even more because the cost will be the same. >> >> bye alex >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss >> list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >> http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >> First click on General and then click on Edit. >> At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > From daniel.kleeman at bridgepartners.co.uk Thu Aug 4 20:05:13 2011 From: daniel.kleeman at bridgepartners.co.uk (Daniel Kleeman) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 18:05:13 +0000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E3AA202.10001@level7.it> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> <4E3AA202.10001@level7.it> Message-ID: <6683AC7F1D2D6644A670DCB5C890827B1C993C9C@brillo2.bridgepartners.local> I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators less per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not support) then it should be a flat rate. Daniel Kleeman Bridge Partners GB -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44 To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Hi all, I disagree with this approach for two reasons: 1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002 2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come. I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay less than a small operator. My concern is that: a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators. b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW IPv4 addresses in 2014?) Just my 2 euro cents. > On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space >> tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other >> RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. > It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote > address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being > some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE > region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - > the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to > the big player. > > Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: > > /22 0.490 > /21 0.441 > /20 0.319 > /19 0.210 > /18 0.130 > /17 0.078 > /16 0.046 > /15 0.027 > /14 0.016 > /13 0.010 > /12 0.006 > /11 0.004 > /10 0.003 > /9 0.003 > /8 0.002 > > Best regards, > > wiwi > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. From ripe-lir at speednic.eu Thu Aug 4 21:07:13 2011 From: ripe-lir at speednic.eu (SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:07:13 -0400 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <6683AC7F1D2D6644A670DCB5C890827B1C993C9C@brillo2.bridgepartners.local> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> <4E3AA202.10001@level7.it> <6683AC7F1D2D6644A670DCB5C890827B1C993C9C@brillo2.bridgepartners.local> Message-ID: <4E3AEDE1.9080402@speednic.eu> there is a logic - larger operators will use much more IPv4 space and don't care IPv4 space. New LIR's will not have the chance to do that as each year it will be much restricted from RIPE in fact that IPv4 space is coming more and more rare. A lot of "big LIR" will have a high pool of "not used" IPv4 address but they are not care to reduce/return that space as other can use it. So why a little LIR should only have the right to get a /22 (as we are going to got a LIR in 1997 it was a /19). A used based charge is the only best charge even like "member points". As a gift to be not less supported a idea is to get them more "voices" an the general meeting, more courses place or anythink like this. There is no logic that a small LIR (as they are a lot of all members) should pay the high percentage even the don't use the high ranges of IPv4. Have you asked one time as a small/medium LIR to order a /16 network ?? If a big LIR will ask he will receive without a lot of information. For a small/medium LIR it was like unpossible to get a new /19 in the past as we know it from ourself as we only got a /20 one. bye alex Am 04.08.2011 14:05, schrieb Daniel Kleeman: > I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators less per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not support) then it should be a flat rate. > > Daniel Kleeman > Bridge Partners > GB > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco > Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44 > To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst > Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > Hi all, > > I disagree with this approach for two reasons: > > 1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002 > > 2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come. > > I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay less than a small operator. > > My concern is that: > > a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators. > > b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW > IPv4 addresses in 2014?) > > Just my 2 euro cents. > >> On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space >>> tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other >>> RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. >> It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote >> address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being >> some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE >> region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - >> the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to >> the big player. >> >> Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: >> >> /22 0.490 >> /21 0.441 >> /20 0.319 >> /19 0.210 >> /18 0.130 >> /17 0.078 >> /16 0.046 >> /15 0.027 >> /14 0.016 >> /13 0.010 >> /12 0.006 >> /11 0.004 >> /10 0.003 >> /9 0.003 >> /8 0.002 >> >> Best regards, >> >> wiwi >> >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >> http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >> First click on General and then click on Edit. >> At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > > From geir at hotwire.no Thu Aug 4 21:38:01 2011 From: geir at hotwire.no (Geir Aage Amundsen) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:38:01 +0200 Subject: SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E3AEDE1.9080402@speednic.eu> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> <4E3AA202.10001@level7.it> <6683AC7F1D2D6644A670DCB5C890827B1C993C9C@brillo2.bridgepartners.local> <4E3AEDE1.9080402@speednic.eu> Message-ID: <005f01cc52de$0815de50$18419af0$@no> Can't we just charge IPv4 /24 50 euro as we do with PI. So a /21 8 X 50 = 400. A /20 will be a 800. We can take a RIPE member charge 500,-. I ASN could be 50 or 100. The price can be adjusted annually accordingly after a index. This could be the pricing model for the IP 4 and ASN. The membership could include one /24 and one ASN. I haven't taken the consideration of IP6 space. I /24 could potentially give 64 connections to clients and is well worth 50 I should guess. We can get rid of the XS and XL size system. This should cover RIPE administration expenses. Regards Geir Hotwire Network -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] P? vegne av SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling Sendt: 4. august 2011 21:07 Til: members-discuss at ripe.net Emne: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme there is a logic - larger operators will use much more IPv4 space and don't care IPv4 space. New LIR's will not have the chance to do that as each year it will be much restricted from RIPE in fact that IPv4 space is coming more and more rare. A lot of "big LIR" will have a high pool of "not used" IPv4 address but they are not care to reduce/return that space as other can use it. So why a little LIR should only have the right to get a /22 (as we are going to got a LIR in 1997 it was a /19). A used based charge is the only best charge even like "member points". As a gift to be not less supported a idea is to get them more "voices" an the general meeting, more courses place or anythink like this. There is no logic that a small LIR (as they are a lot of all members) should pay the high percentage even the don't use the high ranges of IPv4. Have you asked one time as a small/medium LIR to order a /16 network ?? If a big LIR will ask he will receive without a lot of information. For a small/medium LIR it was like unpossible to get a new /19 in the past as we know it from ourself as we only got a /20 one. bye alex Am 04.08.2011 14:05, schrieb Daniel Kleeman: > I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators less per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not support) then it should be a flat rate. > > Daniel Kleeman > Bridge Partners > GB > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco > Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44 > To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst > Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > Hi all, > > I disagree with this approach for two reasons: > > 1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002 > > 2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come. > > I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay less than a small operator. > > My concern is that: > > a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators. > > b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW > IPv4 addresses in 2014?) > > Just my 2 euro cents. > >> On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space >>> tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other >>> RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. >> It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote >> address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being >> some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE >> region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - >> the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to >> the big player. >> >> Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: >> >> /22 0.490 >> /21 0.441 >> /20 0.319 >> /19 0.210 >> /18 0.130 >> /17 0.078 >> /16 0.046 >> /15 0.027 >> /14 0.016 >> /13 0.010 >> /12 0.006 >> /11 0.004 >> /10 0.003 >> /9 0.003 >> /8 0.002 >> >> Best regards, >> >> wiwi >> >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >> http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >> First click on General and then click on Edit. >> At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From ray at carpe.net Thu Aug 4 18:47:50 2011 From: ray at carpe.net (Ray Davis) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 18:47:50 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst In-Reply-To: <20110803122148.GP1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E3868B2.4000406@optimate-server.de> <4E391382.3030500@llnw.com> <4E39366E.2090908@hovland.cx> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C6970F@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20110803122148.GP1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> Message-ID: As RIPE members, our costs are based on RIPE's costs. Something like 2/3rds of RIPE's costs are for personnel. So let's find out what the personnel are doing and why, and charge largely on that. For example, if a large portion of RIPE's personnel are handing requests (allocations, approvals, new ASes, DNS changes, questions, etc), then let's charge something based on the number of "requests". This would more fairly depict how much RIPE spends taking care of a member. Objects and allocations may have something to do with it, but 5 objects in a database cost little more than 1 object or 100 objects. At least the difference is minimal in terms of real-life costs. As an example, we have a /19 (because that's what RIPE decided to give us back when we became a member), but I guess we have only 2-5 real "requests" per year which require human intervention. So why should we be paying for a random (perhaps larger) portion of the RIPE personnel budget instead of just enough to cover our 2-5 requests (plus some overhead, of course)? Just a thought... Cheers, Ray ___ carpeNet Information Technologies GmbH Lorsbacher Str. 4, 65719 Hofheim, Deutschland www.carpe.net T: +49-6192-964400 F: +49-6192-964449 Amtsgericht Frankfurt HRB 41374, Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Ray Davis On 3. Aug 2011, at 14:21 Uhr, Simon Lockhart wrote: > On Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:18:11PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote: >> Paying per object does actually reflect somewhat on the amount of >> labor/time/effort that the RIPE NCC workforce has to deal with you. > > Just for clarity, I believe we should be talking about allocations here, not > objects in the database. > > I have 5 or 6 IPv4 allocations from RIPE. Within those, I probably have over > 100 assignment objects recorded in the database. > > I think it would be fair to be charged based on the number of allocations, as > each allocation requires time with the RIPE NCC to process the request. > > Simon > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cyberbunker.com Thu Aug 4 21:52:32 2011 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 19:52:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <005f01cc52de$0815de50$18419af0$@no> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> <4E3AA202.10001@level7.it> <6683AC7F1D2D6644A670DCB5C890827B1C993C9C@brillo2.bridgepartners.local> <4E3AEDE1.9080402@speednic.eu> <005f01cc52de$0815de50$18419af0$@no> Message-ID: we -don't- do that with pi. a /24 pi "resource" is 50 euros a /8 pi "resource" is still 50 euros. On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Geir Aage Amundsen wrote: > Can't we just charge IPv4 /24 50 euro as we do with PI. So a /21 8 X 50 = > 400. A /20 will be a 800. We can take a RIPE member charge 500,-. I ASN > could be 50 or 100. The price can be adjusted annually accordingly after a > index. > > This could be the pricing model for the IP 4 and ASN. The membership could > include one /24 and one ASN. > > I haven't taken the consideration of IP6 space. I /24 could potentially give > 64 connections to clients and is well worth 50 I should guess. We can get > rid of the XS and XL size system. This should cover RIPE administration > expenses. > > Regards > > Geir > Hotwire Network > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] > P? vegne av SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling > Sendt: 4. august 2011 21:07 > Til: members-discuss at ripe.net > Emne: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > > there is a logic - larger operators will use much more IPv4 space and > don't care IPv4 space. New LIR's will not have the chance to do that as > each year it will be much restricted from RIPE in fact that IPv4 space > is coming more and more rare. > > A lot of "big LIR" will have a high pool of "not used" IPv4 address but > they are not care to reduce/return that space as other can use it. So > why a little LIR should only have the right to get a /22 (as we are > going to got a LIR in 1997 it was a /19). > > A used based charge is the only best charge even like "member points". > As a gift to be not less supported a idea is to get them more "voices" > an the general meeting, more courses place or anythink like this. > > There is no logic that a small LIR (as they are a lot of all members) > should pay the high percentage even the don't use the high ranges of IPv4. > > Have you asked one time as a small/medium LIR to order a /16 network ?? > If a big LIR will ask he will receive without a lot of information. For > a small/medium LIR it was like unpossible to get a new /19 in the past > as we know it from ourself as we only got a /20 one. > > bye alex > > > Am 04.08.2011 14:05, schrieb Daniel Kleeman: >> I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators less > per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators > to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not > support) then it should be a flat rate. >> >> Daniel Kleeman >> Bridge Partners >> GB >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco >> Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44 >> To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst >> Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >> >> Hi all, >> >> I disagree with this approach for two reasons: >> >> 1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you > request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the > following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002 >> >> 2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see > point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come. >> >> I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay > less than a small operator. >> >> My concern is that: >> >> a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make > a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers > and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators. >> >> b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the > allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW >> IPv4 addresses in 2014?) >> >> Just my 2 euro cents. >> >>> On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space >>>> tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other >>>> RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. >>> It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote >>> address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being >>> some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE >>> region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - >>> the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to >>> the big player. >>> >>> Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: >>> >>> /22 0.490 >>> /21 0.441 >>> /20 0.319 >>> /19 0.210 >>> /18 0.130 >>> /17 0.078 >>> /16 0.046 >>> /15 0.027 >>> /14 0.016 >>> /13 0.010 >>> /12 0.006 >>> /11 0.004 >>> /10 0.003 >>> /9 0.003 >>> /8 0.002 >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> wiwi >>> >>> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >>> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >>> http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >>> First click on General and then click on Edit. >>> At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. >> >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cyberbunker.com Thu Aug 4 22:01:28 2011 From: sven at cyberbunker.com (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:01:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <005f01cc52de$0815de50$18419af0$@no> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37D1D9.3050406@progon.net> <20110803104638.GO1656@simonl.cablecomnetworking.co.uk> <4E3948FA.7080501@progon.net> <82mxfqhb99.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4E39551B.60102@progon.net> <4E3AA202.10001@level7.it> <6683AC7F1D2D6644A670DCB5C890827B1C993C9C@brillo2.bridgepartners.local> <4E3AEDE1.9080402@speednic.eu> <005f01cc52de$0815de50$18419af0$@no> Message-ID: an asn could be a few cents. as actually, there are enough asn's to go around for everyone that currently has a single ipv4 ip address (as asn's are 32 bit too ;) and you normally only need 1 or very few of them anyway. (unless ofcourse you finally want to roll out the internet as it was intended, and give every home user their own) in which case an asn should still cost less than a single ipv4 ip, as you don't need to subnet them, there is no waste, and complete networks still just require -1- (serverfarms, office networks, etc) i don't think that if we were to give each and every internet connected party at each and every single one of their locations their own asn, we'd even reach 1/4th of the 32 bit integer size so there actually is no reason for an asn to cost "more" than a single ipv4 address, or a person contact (free) or a role contact (free) or a maintainer contact (free), as they simply, cannot run out. as for the current pi billing model: its not charged per /24, its charged per -resource-. if you wanted a /22 and got 4 /24's you pay four times as much as with the single /22 :P On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Geir Aage Amundsen wrote: > Can't we just charge IPv4 /24 50 euro as we do with PI. So a /21 8 X 50 = > 400. A /20 will be a 800. We can take a RIPE member charge 500,-. I ASN > could be 50 or 100. The price can be adjusted annually accordingly after a > index. > > This could be the pricing model for the IP 4 and ASN. The membership could > include one /24 and one ASN. > > I haven't taken the consideration of IP6 space. I /24 could potentially give > 64 connections to clients and is well worth 50 I should guess. We can get > rid of the XS and XL size system. This should cover RIPE administration > expenses. > > Regards > > Geir > Hotwire Network > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] > P? vegne av SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling > Sendt: 4. august 2011 21:07 > Til: members-discuss at ripe.net > Emne: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > > there is a logic - larger operators will use much more IPv4 space and > don't care IPv4 space. New LIR's will not have the chance to do that as > each year it will be much restricted from RIPE in fact that IPv4 space > is coming more and more rare. > > A lot of "big LIR" will have a high pool of "not used" IPv4 address but > they are not care to reduce/return that space as other can use it. So > why a little LIR should only have the right to get a /22 (as we are > going to got a LIR in 1997 it was a /19). > > A used based charge is the only best charge even like "member points". > As a gift to be not less supported a idea is to get them more "voices" > an the general meeting, more courses place or anythink like this. > > There is no logic that a small LIR (as they are a lot of all members) > should pay the high percentage even the don't use the high ranges of IPv4. > > Have you asked one time as a small/medium LIR to order a /16 network ?? > If a big LIR will ask he will receive without a lot of information. For > a small/medium LIR it was like unpossible to get a new /19 in the past > as we know it from ourself as we only got a /20 one. > > bye alex > > > Am 04.08.2011 14:05, schrieb Daniel Kleeman: >> I strongly agree that there is no logic in charging larger operators less > per IP than smaller operators. To do so would be an incentive for operators > to hog more IPs, not fewer. If there is to be a charge (which I do not > support) then it should be a flat rate. >> >> Daniel Kleeman >> Bridge Partners >> GB >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco >> Sent: 04 August 2011 14:44 >> To: Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst >> Cc: Florian Weimer; members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >> >> Hi all, >> >> I disagree with this approach for two reasons: >> >> 1) the IPv4 resource is a scarse resourse therefore, the more you > request/use the MORE you pay (and not the LESS you pay). So I support the > following approach: /8=0.490 and /22=0.002 >> >> 2) if the big operators have no economical incentive to adopt IPv6 (see > point 1) we will still be working ONLY in IPv4 for the years to come. >> >> I really do not see any reason why a big operator (=big money) should pay > less than a small operator. >> >> My concern is that: >> >> a) the fact that IPv4 is going to be exausted in the near future will make > a commercial discrimination between who can give IPv4 addresses to customers > and who cannot, we need a quick adoption of IPv6 from the big operators. >> >> b) malicious big operators do not want to implement IPv6 because the > allocation of Ipv4 makes them stronger than newcomers (who will have NEW >> IPv4 addresses in 2014?) >> >> Just my 2 euro cents. >> >>> On 2011-08-03 15:31, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> I don't think RIPE NCC is in a position to establish an address space >>>> tax. Existing fees are there to cover administrative costs and other >>>> RIPE activities, not as an incentive for address space conservation. >>> It is NOT a tax... The EUR 0.002/IP "fee" is way to low to promote >>> address space conservation. RIPE has 49 /8 assigned by IANA, being >>> some 800M IP addresses. So the annual costs PER IP address in the RIPE >>> region are EUR 0.018/(IP*year), *10-times* more than the EUR 0.002 - >>> the 2010 budget of RIPE being EUR 15M. And no, it's not even unfair to >>> the big player. >>> >>> Costs per IP (and year) in my proposal: >>> >>> /22 0.490 >>> /21 0.441 >>> /20 0.319 >>> /19 0.210 >>> /18 0.130 >>> /17 0.078 >>> /16 0.046 >>> /15 0.027 >>> /14 0.016 >>> /13 0.010 >>> /12 0.006 >>> /11 0.004 >>> /10 0.003 >>> /9 0.003 >>> /8 0.002 >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> wiwi >>> >>> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >>> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >>> http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >>> First click on General and then click on Edit. >>> At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. >> >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From andrey at trifle.net Fri Aug 5 10:37:50 2011 From: andrey at trifle.net (Andrey Semenchuk) Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:37:50 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal: Changes in charging scheme approval process Message-ID: <4E3BABDE.6030001@trifle.net> Hello, Current charging scheme approval process has a serious problem: the charging scheme will still be being under discussion after RIPE will calculate the billing score for LIRs. It means that LIRs can't plan their work in the new billing period because they doesn't know their payments I think we need change charging scheme approval process to avoid this situation in future: charging scheme approval process should be finished BEFORE RIPE calculate the billing score for LIRs. -- Best wishes, Andrey Semenchuk Trifle Internet Service Provider (056) 731-99-11 www.trifle.net From mobilepost at gmail.com Fri Aug 5 11:12:02 2011 From: mobilepost at gmail.com (Matwey Gorbachev) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:12:02 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal: Changes in charging scheme approval process In-Reply-To: <4E3BABDE.6030001@trifle.net> References: <4E3BABDE.6030001@trifle.net> Message-ID: I fully support your proposal! 2011/8/5 Andrey Semenchuk > Hello, > > Current charging scheme approval process has a serious problem: the > charging scheme will still be being under discussion after RIPE will > calculate the billing score for LIRs. > It means that LIRs can't plan their work in the new billing period because > they doesn't know their payments > > I think we need change charging scheme approval process to avoid this > situation in future: charging scheme approval process should be finished > BEFORE RIPE calculate the billing score for LIRs. > > > -- > Best wishes, > Andrey Semenchuk > > Trifle Internet Service Provider > (056) 731-99-11 > www.trifle.net > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/**general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- ????????? ????????????? MG8407-RIPE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at jump.ro Fri Aug 5 11:03:26 2011 From: office at jump.ro (Jump.RO - Office) Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:03:26 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal: Changes in charging scheme approval process In-Reply-To: <4E3BABDE.6030001@trifle.net> References: <4E3BABDE.6030001@trifle.net> Message-ID: <4E3BB1DE.4010203@jump.ro> That is the main issue of this proposal... Kind Regards, cristih +2 for Andrey On 05.08.2011 11:37, Andrey Semenchuk wrote: > Hello, > > Current charging scheme approval process has a serious problem: the charging scheme will still be being under discussion > after RIPE will calculate the billing score for LIRs. > It means that LIRs can't plan their work in the new billing period because they doesn't know their payments > > I think we need change charging scheme approval process to avoid this situation in future: charging scheme approval > process should be finished BEFORE RIPE calculate the billing score for LIRs. > > From simont at nse.co.uk Fri Aug 5 15:08:22 2011 From: simont at nse.co.uk (Simon Talbot) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:08:22 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> Message-ID: Have I missed something quite fundimental, but why can't we just keep the current charging model, it seems to work reasonably well and change for change's sake is never a good idea. Also with the level of automation that currently exists, and the good working knowledge that most people have of the systems, we could probably considerably reduced the RIPE's staffing levels and save a great deal of money. In times of belt tightening, even "Not for Profit" organisations like the RIPE must make the same cut backs as those that exist to make a profit. Best regards, Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are private and confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the named addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not read, copy or use the information contained in any way. If you receive this email or any attachments in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and destroy any copy you have of it. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damages whatsoever arising in any way from receipt or use of this e-mail or any attachments. This e-mail is not intended to create legally binding commitments on our behalf, nor do its comments reflect our corporate views or policies. Net Solutions Europe Ltd?? Registered Office: Baxter House, 48 Church Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8RR?? Registered in England No. 03203624. From jblessing at llnw.com Fri Aug 5 15:17:38 2011 From: jblessing at llnw.com (James Blessing) Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:17:38 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> Message-ID: <4E3BED72.5070901@llnw.com> On 05/08/2011 14:08, Simon Talbot wrote: > Have I missed something quite fundimental, but why can't we just keep the current charging model, it seems to work reasonably well and change for change's sake is never a good idea. Also with the level of automation that currently exists, and the good working knowledge that most people have of the systems, we could probably considerably reduced the RIPE's staffing levels and save a great deal of money. In times of belt tightening, even "Not for Profit" organisations like the RIPE must make the same cut backs as those that exist to make a profit. I gather the change is not to increase revenue but rather to change the distribution to make it 'fair' and 'easier to understand'. Getting a consensus on what that means appears to have 'winners' on one side and 'losers' on the other. J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Aug 5 15:13:58 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Simon Talbot wrote: > Have I missed something quite fundimental, but why can't we just keep the current charging model, it seems to work reasonably well and change for change's sake is never a good idea. Also with the level of automation that currently exists, and the good working knowledge that most people have of the systems, we could probably considerably reduced the RIPE's staffing levels and save a great deal of money. In times of belt tightening, even "Not for Profit" organisations like the RIPE must make the same cut backs as those that exist to make a profit. except for the fact that ripe gets paid anyway :P, its not like anyone would consider cancelling their RIPE lirs just because there "would be a financial crisis" or something :P RIPE's income should be pretty stable, although its -growth- may not be in such times, but that does not affect its rendability. From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Aug 5 15:30:06 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:30:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E3BED72.5070901@llnw.com> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E3BED72.5070901@llnw.com> Message-ID: regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers filter it. works fine within our network, so its probably bgp related either a filter people -actually deliberately installed- or hardcoded into the software.. not sure on that. (240.0.0.0/4 - reserved future/experimental use) furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they don't announce a single ip out of it :P for N in `cat free`;do echo $N.0.0.0/8;whois $N.0.0.0/8|grep -i name:;done 7.0.0.0/8 NetName: DISANET7 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Network DoD OrgTechName: Registration 9.0.0.0/8 NetName: IBM OrgName: IBM Corporation OrgAbuseName: IBM Corporation 21.0.0.0/8 NetName: DNIC-SNET-021 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Network DoD OrgTechName: Registration 22.0.0.0/8 NetName: DNIC-SNET-022 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Network DoD OrgTechName: Registration 25.0.0.0/8 NetName: RIPE-ERX-25 OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgTechName: RIPE NCC Operations netname: UK-MOD-19850128 org-name: DINSA, Ministry of Defence 26.0.0.0/8 NetName: DISANET26 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Registration OrgTechName: Network DoD 28.0.0.0/8 NetName: DNIC-NET-028 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Registration OrgTechName: Network DoD 29.0.0.0/8 NetName: MILX25-TEMP OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Registration OrgTechName: Network DoD 30.0.0.0/8 NetName: DNIC-NET-030 OrgName: DoD Network Information Center OrgTechName: Registration OrgTechName: Network DoD 37.0.0.0/8 NetName: RIPE-37 OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgTechName: RIPE NCC Operations netname: EU-ZZ-37 org-name: RIPE NCC 45.0.0.0/8 48.0.0.0/8 NetName: PRU48 OrgName: The Prudential Insurance Company of America OrgTechName: Network Administrator OrgAbuseName: Network Administrator OrgNOCName: Network Administrator 51.0.0.0/8 NetName: RIPE-ERX-51 OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgTechName: RIPE NCC Operations netname: UK-DWP org-name: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions 104.0.0.0/8 179.0.0.0/8 NetName: LACNIC-179 OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry OrgTechName: LACNIC Whois Info -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, James Blessing wrote: > On 05/08/2011 14:08, Simon Talbot wrote: >> Have I missed something quite fundimental, but why can't we just keep the >> current charging model, it seems to work reasonably well and change for >> change's sake is never a good idea. Also with the level of automation that >> currently exists, and the good working knowledge that most people have of >> the systems, we could probably considerably reduced the RIPE's staffing >> levels and save a great deal of money. In times of belt tightening, even >> "Not for Profit" organisations like the RIPE must make the same cut backs >> as those that exist to make a profit. > > I gather the change is not to increase revenue but rather to change the > distribution to make it 'fair' and 'easier to understand'. Getting a > consensus on what that means appears to have 'winners' on one side and > 'losers' on the other. > > J > -- > James Blessing > +44 7989 039 476 > Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > Limelight Networks > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Aug 5 16:42:28 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:42:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: I like the "v6 or die" approach, time for a shakeout :P we can get rid of all the clueless "competitors" (mostly owned by the MAFIAA anyway ;) in one day, by shutting down ipv4 :P bye bye time warner telecom etc :P On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Brandon Butterworth wrote: >> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >> filter it. > > Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you > eloquently explained previously) > >> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated > > No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. > > v6 or die. > >> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an >> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >> don't announce a single ip out of it :P > > You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point > you see. > > Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non > internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping > realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any > private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it > was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history > now. > > brandon > From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Fri Aug 5 16:22:23 2011 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:22:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Message-ID: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some > e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers > filter it. Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you eloquently explained previously) > furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not > announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand > them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. v6 or die. > don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an > /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they > don't announce a single ip out of it :P You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point you see. Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history now. brandon From sven at cb3rob.net Sat Aug 6 12:10:54 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> Message-ID: Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet. those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really. eyeballs -> few well known sites and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, or die. and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if you consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;) we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing models ;), get over it. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: > Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for > years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a few > 'well-known' sites. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM > To: jblessing at llnw.com; sven at cb3rob.net > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > >> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >> filter it. > > Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you > eloquently explained previously) > >> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated > > No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. > > v6 or die. > >> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an >> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >> don't announce a single ip out of it :P > > You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point > you see. > > Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non > internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping > realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any > private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it > was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history > now. > > brandon > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cb3rob.net Sat Aug 6 12:13:56 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> Message-ID: there comes a time where you have to ask: are you running a business, or a museum :P keeping ipv4 around just for old times sake... oh well.. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older > packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of > older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet. > > those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really. > > eyeballs -> few well known sites > > and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, or > die. > > and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if you > consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet > ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;) > > we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no > future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing > models ;), get over it. > > > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > ========================================================================= > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net > ========================================================================= > C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob > ========================================================================= > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: > >> Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for >> years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a few >> 'well-known' sites. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net >> [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] >> On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth >> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM >> To: jblessing at llnw.com; sven at cb3rob.net >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >> >>> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >>> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >>> filter it. >> >> Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you >> eloquently explained previously) >> >>> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >>> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >>> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated >> >> No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. >> >> v6 or die. >> >>> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an >>> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >>> don't announce a single ip out of it :P >> >> You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point >> you see. >> >> Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non >> internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping >> realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any >> private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it >> was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history >> now. >> >> brandon >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general >> page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, >> you can add or remove addresses. >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cb3rob.net Sat Aug 6 12:21:59 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> Message-ID: big players that don't adapt go the way of the dinosaur. thats how things work. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: > The problem is, big players have lots of IPv4 addresses so they don't care > about switching to dual-stack or IPv6. Small LIRs have small networks but > nobody cares about their opinion:) > > Probably charging more $$ to big players will push them to release > not-in-use IPv4 or switch to IPv6 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:14 PM > To: Redi Tela > Cc: 'Brandon Butterworth'; jblessing at llnw.com; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > there comes a time where you have to ask: are you running a business, or a > museum :P keeping ipv4 around just for old times sake... oh well.. > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > ========================================================================= > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net > ========================================================================= > C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob > ========================================================================= > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older >> packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of >> older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet. >> >> those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really. >> >> eyeballs -> few well known sites >> >> and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, > or >> die. >> >> and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if > you >> consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet >> ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;) >> >> we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no >> future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing >> models ;), get over it. >> >> >> >> -- >> Greetings, >> >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >> ========================================================================= >> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net >> ========================================================================= >> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >> ========================================================================= >> >> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: >> >>> Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for >>> years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a > few >>> 'well-known' sites. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net >>> [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] >>> On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth >>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM >>> To: jblessing at llnw.com; sven at cb3rob.net >>> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >>> >>>> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >>>> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >>>> filter it. >>> >>> Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you >>> eloquently explained previously) >>> >>>> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >>>> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >>>> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated >>> >>> No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. >>> >>> v6 or die. >>> >>>> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need > an >>>> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >>>> don't announce a single ip out of it :P >>> >>> You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point >>> you see. >>> >>> Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non >>> internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping >>> realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any >>> private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it >>> was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history >>> now. >>> >>> brandon >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>> general >>> page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >>> here, >>> you can add or remove addresses. >>> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general >> page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, >> you can add or remove addresses. >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cb3rob.net Sat Aug 6 12:24:18 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:24:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> Message-ID: don't get me wrong, they're perfectly free to run whatever the fuck they want over -their- networks, and sell it to their customers, just that they should not complain if all of a sudden, facebook, google, porn, and the piratebay etc are no longer on their part of the internet *grin* -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: > The problem is, big players have lots of IPv4 addresses so they don't care > about switching to dual-stack or IPv6. Small LIRs have small networks but > nobody cares about their opinion:) > > Probably charging more $$ to big players will push them to release > not-in-use IPv4 or switch to IPv6 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:14 PM > To: Redi Tela > Cc: 'Brandon Butterworth'; jblessing at llnw.com; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > there comes a time where you have to ask: are you running a business, or a > museum :P keeping ipv4 around just for old times sake... oh well.. > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > ========================================================================= > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net > ========================================================================= > C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob > ========================================================================= > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older >> packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of >> older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet. >> >> those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really. >> >> eyeballs -> few well known sites >> >> and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, > or >> die. >> >> and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if > you >> consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet >> ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;) >> >> we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no >> future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing >> models ;), get over it. >> >> >> >> -- >> Greetings, >> >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >> ========================================================================= >> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net >> ========================================================================= >> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >> ========================================================================= >> >> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: >> >>> Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for >>> years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a > few >>> 'well-known' sites. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net >>> [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] >>> On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth >>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM >>> To: jblessing at llnw.com; sven at cb3rob.net >>> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >>> >>>> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >>>> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >>>> filter it. >>> >>> Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you >>> eloquently explained previously) >>> >>>> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >>>> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >>>> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated >>> >>> No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. >>> >>> v6 or die. >>> >>>> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need > an >>>> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >>>> don't announce a single ip out of it :P >>> >>> You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point >>> you see. >>> >>> Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non >>> internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping >>> realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any >>> private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it >>> was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history >>> now. >>> >>> brandon >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>> general >>> page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >>> here, >>> you can add or remove addresses. >>> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general >> page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, >> you can add or remove addresses. >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. > From erik at bais.name Sat Aug 6 14:55:27 2011 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 14:55:27 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Sven, Although your points about the future of IPv4 is not under debate, IPv4 will be here for the next 2 years. And that is also what the topic is about, a charging scheme for 2012, providing a re-presentable way of charging for a LIR membership. What I read in the discussion is that we are looking for a way that is easy to understand and provides a way to cover the services provided by RIPE NCC and preferred in a way that is representation by the time used by a LIR to the resources used from RIPE. (human and/or IP resources). Stating that managing a database shouldn't cost X when running it for 7750 LIR's doesn't cut it, as RIPE NCC does much more than most of us use or see. Think about organizing the LIR trainings, IPv6 trainings, RIPE meetings, attending IETF or other RIR meetings, development of statistical information systems about Internet Health, the usage of BGP or prefixes etc. One could argue if some of those should be paid in another way than the current membership fees, however each of them are agreed upon by the members that actually attend the RIPE meetings in the RIPE NCC Activity Plan. So the big question for me atm is : Would one like to see a fee structure (for 2012) based on a simple budget (roughly 17.5 milj. Euro ) for 2012 divided by $number_of_members ( 7745 ) or are we going to look into current actual usage of resources. The easiest thing is to charge every member 2250 Euro yearly and be done with this whole discussion. Yes some LIR members don't have any interaction with RIPE or their provided services and having a single membership fee (not looking at used resources) might be more expensive for some (specifically smaller LIR's and new entrants.), but dealing with a creative fee structure also costs money. If you would look closer into the actual financial statement you would get a pretty good idea which services are provided and what the overall cost is. For instance, the cost of RIPE LIR trainings should be covered by the setup of a new LIR imho (and maxed to 2 free seats). Currently there is no additional charge for extra seats or re-visiting of a training. I personally think that training should not be free as free doesn't give the perception of value. Free doesn't work IMHO. To give an idea, the current budget for 2011 for training services is 383.000 Euro. The training department (I know quite a lot of them personally and love them all to bits) does a hell of a job, flying all over the region, creating the content AND delivering the content (spreading the word ..) but if a LIR has a high change rate of their people, they could just send people each time, with no extra cost. Define fair to me please ... The yearly cost for the RIPE meetings is about 850k Euro. The actual income for RIPE meetings is about 250k Euro, a loss per year of 600k Euro. Yes, even if you don't attend the RIPE meeting, your membership fee still pays 80 euro per LIR per year to cover the cost. The big question might be, should the RIPE membership fee pay to cover the RIPE meetings as it is not exclusive for RIPE members. If the answer yes, in that case one should also not complain that cost are made for things they don't use and that it is not fair that others have more IP's than they have and that they need to pay roughly 2250 euro yearly to cover all operating cost. 2250 euro yearly is 187,50 euro a month ... or 6.25 euro a day .. ( 6 euro 25 is roughly the same as I spend per day on smoking ... ) Regards, Erik Bais From sven at cb3rob.net Sat Aug 6 15:13:35 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:13:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, be preferred over more complex methods. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Sven, > > Although your points about the future of IPv4 is not under debate, IPv4 will be here for the next 2 years. > > And that is also what the topic is about, a charging scheme for 2012, providing a re-presentable way of charging for a LIR membership. > What I read in the discussion is that we are looking for a way that is easy to understand and provides a way to cover the services provided by RIPE NCC and preferred in a way that is representation by the time used by a LIR to the resources used from RIPE. (human and/or IP resources). > > Stating that managing a database shouldn't cost X when running it for 7750 LIR's doesn't cut it, as RIPE NCC does much more than most of us use or see. > Think about organizing the LIR trainings, IPv6 trainings, RIPE meetings, attending IETF or other RIR meetings, development of statistical information systems about Internet Health, the usage of BGP or prefixes etc. > > One could argue if some of those should be paid in another way than the current membership fees, however each of them are agreed upon by the members that actually attend the RIPE meetings in the RIPE NCC Activity Plan. > > So the big question for me atm is : > > Would one like to see a fee structure (for 2012) based on a simple budget (roughly 17.5 milj. Euro ) for 2012 divided by $number_of_members ( 7745 ) or are we going to look into current actual usage of resources. The easiest thing is to charge every member 2250 Euro yearly and be done with this whole discussion. > > Yes some LIR members don't have any interaction with RIPE or their provided services and having a single membership fee (not looking at used resources) might be more expensive for some (specifically smaller LIR's and new entrants.), but dealing with a creative fee structure also costs money. > > If you would look closer into the actual financial statement you would get a pretty good idea which services are provided and what the overall cost is. > > For instance, the cost of RIPE LIR trainings should be covered by the setup of a new LIR imho (and maxed to 2 free seats). Currently there is no additional charge for extra seats or re-visiting of a training. I personally think that training should not be free as free doesn't give the perception of value. Free doesn't work IMHO. > To give an idea, the current budget for 2011 for training services is 383.000 Euro. The training department (I know quite a lot of them personally and love them all to bits) does a hell of a job, flying all over the region, creating the content AND delivering the content (spreading the word ..) but if a LIR has a high change rate of their people, they could just send people each time, with no extra cost. Define fair to me please ... > > The yearly cost for the RIPE meetings is about 850k Euro. The actual income for RIPE meetings is about 250k Euro, a loss per year of 600k Euro. Yes, even if you don't attend the RIPE meeting, your membership fee still pays 80 euro per LIR per year to cover the cost. The big question might be, should the RIPE membership fee pay to cover the RIPE meetings as it is not exclusive for RIPE members. If the answer yes, in that case one should also not complain that cost are made for things they don't use and that it is not fair that others have more IP's than they have and that they need to pay roughly 2250 euro yearly to cover all operating cost. > > 2250 euro yearly is 187,50 euro a month ... or 6.25 euro a day .. ( 6 euro 25 is roughly the same as I spend per day on smoking ... ) > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From wiwi at progon.net Sun Aug 7 10:28:19 2011 From: wiwi at progon.net (Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 10:28:19 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] SURVEY - Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <4E3E4CA3.8040903@progon.net> Dear members-discuss list, may I ask you fill out this survey? Important: This survey IS NOT official, nor is it related to RIPE. It's just the private survey of a member to find out, if there is need to change the billing scheme. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FGKJBQJ (Deadline: 21.8.2011) Purpose is: - to find out, if there is sufficient interest in this issue among the members - to get an indication, what new scheme should include We will publish the result in this list. The LIR id and the email will kept secret, neither one will ever be made public or used for purposes beyond this "RIPE Billing Scheme" discussion. LIR id and email are optional, anyways.. We are a state funded school network with no commercial activity, so maybe we can win your trust to provide this information. I would be very grateful if you could spare some time to do the survey. It consists of 16 question, you should not need more than 5 minutes to complete it. Best regards, Christian Wittenhorst ch.ksz From arash_mpc at parsun.com Mon Aug 8 12:23:17 2011 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:53:17 +0430 Subject: [members-discuss] SURVEY - Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E3E4CA3.8040903@progon.net> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4E3E4CA3.8040903@progon.net> Message-ID: <001401cc55b5$3f867640$be9362c0$@com> Good job Christian, looking forward to see the result in the list. Regards, Arash Naderpour Parsun Network Solutions -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 12:58 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] SURVEY - Charging Scheme Dear members-discuss list, may I ask you fill out this survey? Important: This survey IS NOT official, nor is it related to RIPE. It's just the private survey of a member to find out, if there is need to change the billing scheme. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FGKJBQJ (Deadline: 21.8.2011) Purpose is: - to find out, if there is sufficient interest in this issue among the members - to get an indication, what new scheme should include We will publish the result in this list. The LIR id and the email will kept secret, neither one will ever be made public or used for purposes beyond this "RIPE Billing Scheme" discussion. LIR id and email are optional, anyways.. We are a state funded school network with no commercial activity, so maybe we can win your trust to provide this information. I would be very grateful if you could spare some time to do the survey. It consists of 16 question, you should not need more than 5 minutes to complete it. Best regards, Christian Wittenhorst ch.ksz ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From hostmaster at degnet-gmbh.de Mon Aug 8 15:09:38 2011 From: hostmaster at degnet-gmbh.de (DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:09:38 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM > > a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, > be preferred over more complex methods. > I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment. The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. 40k or 0,00236...? per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies. 0,02-0,05? per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. -Florian From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Mon Aug 8 15:21:46 2011 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:21:46 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <4E3FE2EA.4050305@level7.it> I fully support that the price per IPv4 should be "the more you ask, the more Euro/IP you pay" That should boost the IPv6 development: 1) large system will move towards IPv6 2) content (which is available more on large networks than in small system) will be available under IPv6 and that will also boost small system to move toward IPv6 Thank you > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM >> >> a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, >> be preferred over more complex methods. >> > > I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. > > As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment. > > The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. > 40k or 0,00236...? per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies. > > 0,02-0,05? per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. > The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. > > -Florian > > !??'????+y???j)l~?&?? ? > )??????r?,????x%??i??zZ ?{h??,?O??Z?? ???jw`??-?? ?????zm????*?Z???zw???z?????)brJ'??"?E?j)l?w^?+????m?Lj)b??????z??????]?????i?kz? s=== -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it From sven at cb3rob.net Mon Aug 8 15:56:30 2011 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: =?UTF-8?B?WyNDUkYtODk3LTM5MTkyXTogUmU6IFttZW1iZXI=?= =?UTF-8?B?cy1kaXNjdXNzXSBOZXcgQ2hhcmdpbmcgU2NoZW0=?= =?UTF-8?B?ZQ==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: actually, i think you're not doing very well at all, in fact, your techical skills seem to suck, considering that the ripe members ***MAILINGLIST*** has a fuckton of open tickets with your tracking system. so i suggest you remove the ticket system and auto-reply from any mailinglist you're on, including this one. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, allserverhosting wrote: > Brandon Butterworth, > > This email concerns your recent ticket: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme (CRF-897-39192) > > As part of our commitment to improving your customer support experience, we would like to know how you think we are doing. > > You are invited to complete a short satisfaction survey consisting of just a few multiple-choice questions. > > It should take you no more than a minute to complete (we promise!). > > To take the survey, please click on the following link: http://helpdesk.allserverhosting.com/index.php?/Tickets/Survey/Index/CRF-897-39192/1k0sejpbe8m7 > > Your feedback is very important to us and we really appreciate your time. > > Thank you in advance, > > allserverhosting > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Support Center: http://helpdesk.allserverhosting.com/index.php? From alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net Mon Aug 8 16:56:29 2011 From: alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net (Alfredo Sola) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 16:56:29 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [#CRF-897-39192]: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <90922A25-BCDA-48B8-85E6-5496B0E4222A@solucionesdinamicas.net> > actually, i think you're not doing very well at all, > in fact, your techical skills seem to suck, >> To take the survey, please click on the following link: http://helpdesk.allserverhosting.com/index.php?/Tickets/Survey/Index/CRF-897-39192/1k0sejpbe8m7 -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/ From I.Makarenko at zsttk.ru Tue Aug 9 03:48:42 2011 From: I.Makarenko at zsttk.ru (Ivan M Makarenko) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 08:48:42 +0700 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <4E4091FA.509@zsttk.ru> Let me describe the situation from my point of view. I think that it is not LARGE members who must be putting forward to deploy IPv6, but exactly a MEDIUM/SMALL. Assuming LARGE members as a (mostly) IP transit operators and M/S as a broadband access, we get an exactly "IPv6 chicken-and-the-egg" problem. In our region, we have enough IPv6 transit operators (most of whom are LARGE), but *no* broadband access IPv6 providers. As I see, providing pure IPv6 transit is much more easy/cheap than deploying broadband access IPv6 networks - and that's the main issue. Well, if we will reduce IPv4 cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be empty pipes and no content. Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - I consider wiwi model/proposal as fair, but I don't think it could be an elixir for IPv6 development. It is the shortage of IPv4 space that will be the reason, not the "price of IPv4" (and the IPv4 black markets, if any, will regulate themselves). -- Best regards, Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster To: members-discuss at ripe.net Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700 > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM >> a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, >> be preferred over more complex methods. >> > > I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. > > As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment. > > The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. > 40k or 0,00236...? per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies. > > 0,02-0,05? per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. > The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. > > -Florian > > !??'????+y???j)l~?&?? ? > )??????r?,????x%??i??zZ ?{h??,?O??Z?? ???jw`??-?? ?????zm????*?Z???zw???z?????)brJ'??"?E?j)l?w^?+????m?Lj)b??????z??????]?????i?kz? s=== From Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com Tue Aug 9 09:33:00 2011 From: Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com (Jamie Stallwood) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:33:00 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Message-ID: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A1404049FE8EA@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> As a small LIR with a single /21 block ("effectively PI"), I'd hate to see any LIR small or big be priced out through punitive charging schemes. I can't see that being good either for the NCC or the RIPE community as a whole, if we weaken the membership base. I think the "wiwi" model, or something similar, has merit. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Ltd M: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood at imerja.com NIC: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From I.Makarenko at zsttk.ru Tue Aug 9 10:02:59 2011 From: I.Makarenko at zsttk.ru (Ivan M Makarenko) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:02:59 +0700 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E40D44E.30905@trifle.net> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4E4091FA.509@zsttk.ru> <4E40D44E.30905@trifle.net> Message-ID: <4E40E9B3.804@zsttk.ru> Andrey, I am not about increasing expenses for IPv4 holders (M/S). I am not about decreasing expenses for L. I'm just trying to say that I don't believe that any attempts for "IPv6 stimulation" by means of *charging scheme* could be successful. IP transit operators can easily implement IPv6 (because they are "ready") almost right now, but broadband providers will deploy IPv6 according to their internal processes of access network upgrade and billing upgrade (much slower and more expensive). Aren't we say the same things? Okay, I'll say it in other words. If our company were not already being deploy IPv6 on transit and access levels, will we start to look into IPv6 because IPv4 doubles(triples) in price? Well, no. Price is not a point at all, it's irrelevant. The point is *shortage*, and that's my only idea for this messages. Again, the only thing I was talking about is IPv6 deployment stimulus in the context of the charging scheme. But for now, I this idea should be considered off-topic here. Thanks. -- Best regards, Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme From: Andrey Semenchuk To: Ivan M Makarenko Date: Tue Aug 09 2011 13:31:42 GMT+0700 > Ivan M Makarenko wrote: >> Well, if we will reduce IPv4 >> cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get >> nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be >> empty pipes and no content. > You can't popularize IPv6 by volitional action. It's the wrong way. The > broadband operators bear much more expenses than transit operators (and > there's no no contradiction here with your letter). And even when you > understand that the broadband operators bear much more expenses you > still call comunity to increase their expences for IPv4 resources?? > > In this case the only goal for for increasing expences for IPv4 > resources may be the removal of competitors: expenses will be raised for > SMALL/MEDIUM but be decreased for the LARGE. It's not the way IPv6 > deployment should go. And many of members try to pay attention for this > (but I think they have no chance to affect on this because we have (and > had, and will have) a lobby of LAGRE's) > > >> Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - > But the acts are opposite with the words > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >> From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster >> To: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700 >> >>> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM >>>> a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, >>>> be preferred over more complex methods. >>>> >>> >>> I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all >>> services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra >>> pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 >>> address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. >>> >>> As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and >>> do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these >>> companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 >>> deployment. >>> >>> The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: >>> Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any >>> motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most >>> from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these >>> (resources and reserves) by now. >>> 40k or 0,00236...? per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for >>> extra large companies. >>> >>> 0,02-0,05? per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for >>> me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. >>> The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could >>> be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. >>> >>> -Florian >>> >>> !??'????+y???j)l~?&?? ? >>> )??????r?,????x%??i??zZ ?{h??,?O??Z?? ???jw`??-?? ?????zm????* >>> ?Z???zw???z?????)brJ'??"?E?j) >>> l?w^?+????m?Lj)b??????z??????]?????i?kz? s=== >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. > > From andrey at trifle.net Tue Aug 9 08:31:42 2011 From: andrey at trifle.net (Andrey Semenchuk) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:31:42 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E4091FA.509@zsttk.ru> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4E4091FA.509@zsttk.ru> Message-ID: <4E40D44E.30905@trifle.net> Ivan M Makarenko wrote: > Well, if we will reduce IPv4 > cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get > nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be > empty pipes and no content. You can't popularize IPv6 by volitional action. It's the wrong way. The broadband operators bear much more expenses than transit operators (and there's no no contradiction here with your letter). And even when you understand that the broadband operators bear much more expenses you still call comunity to increase their expences for IPv4 resources?? In this case the only goal for for increasing expences for IPv4 resources may be the removal of competitors: expenses will be raised for SMALL/MEDIUM but be decreased for the LARGE. It's not the way IPv6 deployment should go. And many of members try to pay attention for this (but I think they have no chance to affect on this because we have (and had, and will have) a lobby of LAGRE's) > Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - But the acts are opposite with the words > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700 > >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM >>> a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, >>> be preferred over more complex methods. >>> >> >> I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all >> services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra >> pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 >> address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. >> >> As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and >> do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these >> companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 >> deployment. >> >> The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: >> Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any >> motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most >> from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these >> (resources and reserves) by now. >> 40k or 0,00236...? per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for >> extra large companies. >> >> 0,02-0,05? per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for >> me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. >> The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could >> be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. >> >> -Florian >> >> !??'????+y???j)l~?&?? ? >> )??????r?,????x%??i??zZ ?{h??,?O??Z?? ???jw`??-?? ?????zm????* >> ?Z???zw???z?????)brJ'??"?E?j) >> l?w^?+????m?Lj)b??????z??????]?????i?kz? s=== > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Best wishes, Andrey Semenchuk Trifle Internet Service Provider (056) 731-99-11 www.trifle.net From simont at nse.co.uk Mon Aug 8 15:23:00 2011 From: simont at nse.co.uk (Simon Talbot) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:23:00 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: Pro or anti ipv6, it is surely not the job of RIPE to force its members to do anything they do not want to do by punative pricing. The job of RIPE is to serve its members. Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are private and confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the named addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not read, copy or use the information contained in any way. If you receive this email or any attachments in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and destroy any copy you have of it. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damages whatsoever arising in any way from receipt or use of this e-mail or any attachments. This e-mail is not intended to create legally binding commitments on our behalf, nor do its comments reflect our corporate views or policies. Net Solutions Europe Ltd?? Registered Office: Baxter House, 48 Church Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8RR?? Registered in England No. 03203624. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster Sent: 08 August 2011 2:10 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Cc: Sven Olaf Kamphuis Subject: RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM > > a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, > be preferred over more complex methods. > I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 deployment. The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these (resources and reserves) by now. 40k or 0,00236...? per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for extra large companies. 0,02-0,05? per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. -Florian !????'????+y???j)l~?&?? ? )??????r?,????x%??i??zZ ?{h??,?O??Z?? ???jw`??-?? ?????zm????*?Z???zw?? ?z??????)brJ'??"?E?j)l?w^?+????m?Lj)b??????z??????]?????i?kz? From LSantoul at imsnetworks.com Mon Aug 8 15:29:53 2011 From: LSantoul at imsnetworks.com (Laurent Santoul) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:29:53 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <496B3161F3B3DD43B8DDB03F19AE53733BA2785B@SRVCRM.intermediasud.local> Hi Rob, that was my initial understanding of the document. As far as I understood, the new rules are meant not to have any sponsoring LIR any more, but to have all the users of any resource directly refer to the RIPE. I don't understand the purpose of this policy, but that's it. If I am wrong, I would like to receive a clarification from the RIPE. Il 02/08/2011 12.05, Rob Evans ha scritto: > Paolo, Patrick, > > I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the RIPE NCC? > > It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? What prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?" > > Best, > Rob > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Dr.Ing.Paolo Prandini Dr.Paolo Prandini Rottendorfer Str. 1 A-9560 Lindl Austria Telefon +43 (0)42765105 Fax +43 (0)427637590 S.P.E.Sistemi e Progetti Elettronici s.a.s. Via Liguria 5 I-25125 Brescia Italia Telefono +39 0302427266 Fax +39 02700406565 Email prandini at spe.net Web http://www.spe.net CA https://ra.spe.net/pub/cacert/cacert.crt ------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. Persons receiving this e-mail message who are not the named addressee (or his/her co-workers, or persons authorized to take delivery) must not use, forward or reproduce its contents. If you have received this e-mail message by mistake, please contact us immediately and delete this e-mail message beyond retrieval. Die Information dieses e-Mails ist vertraulich und ausschliesslich fuer den Adressaten bestimmt. Der Empfanger dieses e-Mails, der nicht der Adressat ist, (sowie einer seiner Mitarbeiter oder seiner Empfangsberechtigter), darf den Inhalt nicht verwenden, weitergeben oder reproduzieren. Sollten Sie dieses e-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie uns bitte unverzueglich und loeschen Sie das e-Mail unwiederbringlich. Questo messaggio contiene informazioni riservate e confidenziali. Se non siete i destinatari del messaggio (o se avete ricevuto il messaggio per errore) Vi preghiamo di darcene immediata comunicazione ritornandoci il messaggio stesso. Qualsiasi copia, riproduzione in genere, uso o distribuzione del materiale contenuto o allegato al presente messaggio ? severamente proibito. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From phil at hitrail.com Tue Aug 9 11:28:14 2011 From: phil at hitrail.com (Phil Barton) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:28:14 +0100 Subject: {Spam?} RE: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <496B3161F3B3DD43B8DDB03F19AE53733BA2785B@SRVCRM.intermediasud.local> References: <4E37409B.5040903@optimate-server.de> <4E37B3B3.1070001@kambach.net> <4E37B9ED.3040104@spe.net> <21B94AE2-C34A-47C4-827E-BD437D9473D3@nosc.ja.net> <496B3161F3B3DD43B8DDB03F19AE53733BA2785B@SRVCRM.intermediasud.local> Message-ID: <03b801cc5676$aaa40f70$ffec2e50$@com> This is the point I about made a thousand emails ago. As I understand it there is no requirement for a PI user to be a member of RIPE now or under the new proposals although membership now and in the future is desireable. BUT there was a contradiction. Under the old rules if an LIR sponsored a PI user no one paid anything (but some LIRs charged the user). However if the user became a small LIR they paid a membership. RIPE (and the LIR members who went to conference and bothered to read all these proposals earlier - 2 years in the discussion) decided that the best approach was to encourage everyone to come under the RIPE banner and charge for PI assignments or the alternative of a xxs or xs membership. Hearing all the debates this was the best option and avoids users being help to ransom as the IPV4 space dries up. My company became a small LIR 3 years ago as an alternative to a BT sponsored PI. It seems a lot of people want to reinvent the wheel when all this has been gone thru in the rigorous RIPE process - if you didn't join in then don?t complain now. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Laurent Santoul Sent: 08 August 2011 14:30 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme Hi Rob, that was my initial understanding of the document. As far as I understood, the new rules are meant not to have any sponsoring LIR any more, but to have all the users of any resource directly refer to the RIPE. I don't understand the purpose of this policy, but that's it. If I am wrong, I would like to receive a clarification from the RIPE. Il 02/08/2011 12.05, Rob Evans ha scritto: > Paolo, Patrick, > > I may be missing something here from nothing more than a quick scan of the document, but where does it say that all PI users must be members of the RIPE NCC? > > It mentions Direct Assignment Users, but aren't those are the chaps that already have a direct contract with the NCC under 2007-01? What prohibits the current setup of a "sponsoring LIR?" > > Best, > Rob > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. -- Dr.Ing.Paolo Prandini Dr.Paolo Prandini Rottendorfer Str. 1 A-9560 Lindl Austria Telefon +43 (0)42765105 Fax +43 (0)427637590 S.P.E.Sistemi e Progetti Elettronici s.a.s. Via Liguria 5 I-25125 Brescia Italia Telefono +39 0302427266 Fax +39 02700406565 Email prandini at spe.net Web http://www.spe.net CA https://ra.spe.net/pub/cacert/cacert.crt ------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended exclusively for the addressee. Persons receiving this e-mail message who are not the named addressee (or his/her co-workers, or persons authorized to take delivery) must not use, forward or reproduce its contents. If you have received this e-mail message by mistake, please contact us immediately and delete this e-mail message beyond retrieval. Die Information dieses e-Mails ist vertraulich und ausschliesslich fuer den Adressaten bestimmt. Der Empfanger dieses e-Mails, der nicht der Adressat ist, (sowie einer seiner Mitarbeiter oder seiner Empfangsberechtigter), darf den Inhalt nicht verwenden, weitergeben oder reproduzieren. Sollten Sie dieses e-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie uns bitte unverzueglich und loeschen Sie das e-Mail unwiederbringlich. Questo messaggio contiene informazioni riservate e confidenziali. Se non siete i destinatari del messaggio (o se avete ricevuto il messaggio per errore) Vi preghiamo di darcene immediata comunicazione ritornandoci il messaggio stesso. Qualsiasi copia, riproduzione in genere, uso o distribuzione del materiale contenuto o allegato al presente messaggio ? severamente proibito. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3822 - Release Date: 08/08/11 From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Tue Aug 9 13:28:23 2011 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:28:23 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E4091FA.509@zsttk.ru> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4E4091FA.509@zsttk.ru> Message-ID: <4E4119D7.9070409@level7.it> There are two FACTS that we should keep in mind separately: a) the fact that we need an IPv6 migration path (and good motivation) for large systems b) the fact that IPv4 is a scarse resource Regarding b) to me it sounds normal and logical that, for scarse resources, the more you request the more you pay. If we have a cake with 8 slices and 8 kids (poor and rich ones) we cannot decide that if one kid gets the whole cake he will pay LESS.... The more you request, the more you will pay. Regarding point a), I am still curious to know why large ISP did not migrate towards IPv6. Usually when asked about it in the past, the answer I have heard was "we have no reason to move toward IPv6, commercially speaking we have no reason to do it..." Just to give you an idea, 2 years ago (not sure about now), the peering situation in Italy was that small and medium ISPs were doing native IPv6 peering while large ones were not supporting IPv6 or doing it via tunnels. Considering that most of the content stays on the large ISP (p2p and other content (NOTE1) ) even if a small/medium ISP migrates its customers towards IPv6, it will be useless 95% of the content will still be on the IPv4 word. (NOTE1) 1) large providers have many customers, and many customers means a lot of national p2p traffic. In regions where English is not the national language, the p2p content is "localized with the national language" and that means that the p2p traffic stays on the national network. 2) large providers are also content providers: email, VoD, etc is running on their network. > Let me describe the situation from my point of view. > > I think that it is not LARGE members who must be putting forward to > deploy IPv6, but exactly a MEDIUM/SMALL. Assuming LARGE members as > a (mostly) IP transit operators and M/S as a broadband access, we > get an exactly "IPv6 chicken-and-the-egg" problem. In our region, > we have enough IPv6 transit operators (most of whom are LARGE), > but *no* broadband access IPv6 providers. As I see, providing pure IPv6 > transit is much more easy/cheap than deploying broadband access IPv6 > networks - and that's the main issue. Well, if we will reduce IPv4 > cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get > nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be > empty pipes and no content. > > Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - I consider > wiwi model/proposal as fair, but I don't think it could be an elixir for > IPv6 development. It is the shortage of IPv4 space that will be the > reason, not the "price of IPv4" (and the IPv4 black markets, if any, > will regulate themselves). > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. > JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700 > >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM >>> a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, >>> be preferred over more complex methods. >>> >> >> I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all >> services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra >> pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 >> address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. >> >> As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do >> profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these >> companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 >> deployment. >> >> The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: >> Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any >> motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most >> from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these >> (resources and reserves) by now. >> 40k or 0,00236...? per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for >> extra large companies. >> >> 0,02-0,05? per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for >> me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. >> The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could >> be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. >> >> -Florian >> >> !??'????+y???j)l~?&?? ? >> )??????r?,????x%??i??zZ ?{h??,?O??Z?? ???jw`??-?? ?????z >> m????*?Z???zw???z?????)brJ'??"?E?j)l?w^?+????m?Lj)b??????z???? >> ??]?????i?kz? s=== > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it From BECHA at ripe.net Wed Aug 10 13:44:24 2011 From: BECHA at ripe.net (Vesna Manojlovic) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:44:24 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E4091FA.509@zsttk.ru> References: <201108051422.PAA28529@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <003901cc53ff$65f9fe30$31edfa90$@al> <004f01cc5412$93851a20$ba8f4e60$@al> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F193C69721@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4E4091FA.509@zsttk.ru> Message-ID: <4E426F18.6020406@ripe.net> For what it's worth... some extra information about IPv6 deployment levels: On 8/9/11 3:48 AM, Ivan M Makarenko wrote: > Let me describe the situation from my point of view. > > I think that it is not LARGE members who must be putting forward to > deploy IPv6, but exactly a MEDIUM/SMALL. We did analysis of "IPv6 Ripeness" in June last year, and Emile Aben published the results in an article on Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/content-ipv6-ripeness-sequel First graph confirms Ivan's opinion: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/images/userfiles-image-v6ripeness-v6-ripeness-category.png Our of 62 members on "extra large" billing category, 80% had v6 space, and 40% had all "4 stars" on IPv6 Ripeness; "large" are also above the average/median. You can see that the hight of relative IPv6 Ripeness levels are directly proportional to the category size. Regards, Vesna Manojlovic, RIPE NCC > Assuming LARGE members as > a (mostly) IP transit operators and M/S as a broadband access, we > get an exactly "IPv6 chicken-and-the-egg" problem. In our region, > we have enough IPv6 transit operators (most of whom are LARGE), > but *no* broadband access IPv6 providers. As I see, providing pure IPv6 > transit is much more easy/cheap than deploying broadband access IPv6 > networks - and that's the main issue. Well, if we will reduce IPv4 > cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get > nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be > empty pipes and no content. > > Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - I consider > wiwi model/proposal as fair, but I don't think it could be an elixir for > IPv6 development. It is the shortage of IPv4 space that will be the > reason, not the "price of IPv4" (and the IPv4 black markets, if any, > will regulate themselves). > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. > JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia From wiwi at progon.net Sun Aug 14 15:59:41 2011 From: wiwi at progon.net (Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:59:41 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme - Survey - REMINDER Message-ID: <4E47D4CD.9090105@progon.net> Dear members-discuss, if you haven't cast your vote, yet, please do now ;-) https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FGKJBQJ 2**7-1 votes so far... ;-) Best regards, Christian From wiwi at progon.net Sun Aug 21 20:43:52 2011 From: wiwi at progon.net (Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:43:52 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme - Survey - RESULTS Message-ID: <4E5151E8.8070505@progon.net> Dear members-discuss, please find attached the results of the poll. Highlights: - almost 75% would like a scheme without steep jumps between the categories. - about 60% would give away secondary resources (ASN, IP space for IXP, ...) for free. - 60% (vs. 27%) would support a scheme, that encourages LIRs to return unused IPv4 space. - almost 50% would consider a price of EUR 0.02/(IP*year) as reasonable. - 50% do NOT want per transaction fee. - wide, commercial IPv6 deployment is expected for 2014 or later - 65% think, that PI space should be owned or sponsored by a LIR, only. 50% are willing to support a special, low pricing for these (very) small LIRs. Best regards, Christian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RIPE-membership-fee.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57862 bytes Desc: not available URL: From info at lidertelecom.ru Tue Aug 23 16:07:17 2011 From: info at lidertelecom.ru (LiderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:07:17 +0400 Subject: [Ticket#2011082201000431] [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme In-Reply-To: <4E5151E8.8070505@progon.net> References: <4E5151E8.8070505@progon.net> Message-ID: <1314108437.955333.449586333.149059.12@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear colleagues, Sorry for delay with our response to this mailing list. But I was on holidays and was not able to send any letters for discussing of the Charging Schemes. Our opinion you will find below. Please, consider it as all another ones. First of all, I have to say that we are strongly against the Charging Scheme -Model 2. Secondly, we would prefer the old Charging Scheme (2011). Thirdly, If RIPE NCC changes the Charging Scheme then it should be done for 2013 year. Because we need to notify our clients about it. Fourthly, we against the situation when RIPE NCC require list of our End Users before September, 30st. By this date we don?t know will Charging Scheme be changed or no. If yes then how much. RIPE NCC should transfer this term, for example, to the January, 1st. In that case we (in advance) would be able to form the list of our End Users who will be able to pay money according to the new Charging Scheme. With best wishes, Olga Fomina LiderTelecom Ltd. --? ? ?????????, ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????????????????? ??? "????????????" ? ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 ???? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ? ??????? "??????? iSSL" - ????????? iPhone4 ? ???????! ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ URL: [1]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo URL: ?[2]http://verisign.su/?- SSL- ??????????? Verisign URL: [3]http:// www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS URL: [4]http://www.telecom-auctions.ru/ - ???????? ??? ???????????????????? ???????? (B2B) ? URL: [5]http://vkontakte.ru/club18922271 - ??? "????????????" ????????? URL: [6]http://twitter.com/LeaderTelecom - ??? "????????????" vs. Twitter [1] http:// www.InstantSSL.su/ [2] http://verisign.su/ [3] http:// www.HostingConsult.ru/ [4] http://www.telecom-auctions.ru/ [5] http://vkontakte.ru/club18922271 [6] http://twitter.com/LeaderTelecom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Aug 25 16:23:29 2011 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:23:29 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme: Update from the RIPE NCC Message-ID: <4E565AE1.7060701@ripe.net> Dear all, Three weeks ago we have asked you for feedback on our ideas for a renewed Charging Scheme for 20112. In the intervening time, you have discussed the matter, and even conducting a mini-survey. Thank you very much for this input; the RIPE NCC Executive Board and staff have followed the discussion closely. We have noticed a fair number of remarks about our choice to base the Charging Scheme on the amount of number resources our members hold, some arguing that IPv4 is about to fade into irrelevance for these purposes. I would like to explain our reasoning a little more... As you know, the RIPE NCC performs quite a number of activities, on a neutral platform, for the benefit of all of our members and the "good of the Internet" at large. IP address allocation is indeed a large part of it; however, activities such as running the RIPE Database, operations of the k-root server clusters, DNSMON, development of measuring tools and similar are examples of "supporting the Internet infrastructure through technical coordination". The current, and long-established Charging Scheme is based on allocations of addresses over time. As IPv4 allocations will indeed be less prominent in the not-too-distant future, we need to ensure that the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme is adapted in a way that ensures the stability of your favorite service organisation. Other requirements are, as we understood from surveys and personal feedback, simplicity, predictability and fairness. We thought long and hard about it, looking for an indication, a yardstick, to measure the benefit that our members derive from our services. Of course there are many options: company turnover, staff numbers, profit and more. Being active in our particular industry, we agreed that the depth to which our members are involved in the "operations of the Internet" is closely related to the benefit they get from our overall service portfolio. How then do you measure "involvement in the operations of the Internet?" This is where we decided to "keep it close to home," assuming that an organisation holding a /8 is likely to be more involved than those holding a /20 or less. And following from this we decided to use address holdings as the yardstick, one benefit being that we all understand this very well. The rest, as they say, is history... We thought it would be good to change as little as possible from the old Charging Scheme principles, carrying over the idea of membership classes. >From the discussions of the last couple of weeks, one opinion that came across quite strongly is the wish to see smaller jumps in between fee categories. Taking that cue, we are now preparing alternatives, to be presented to the Executive Board in September, that are looking at both a larger number of classes, as well as a sliding scale alternative. We'll keep you posted. For now, thank you again for letting us know what you think. Kind regards, Axel Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC