[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Kordogiannis Themistoklis tkor at hol.net
Thu Aug 4 16:40:39 CEST 2011
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.