SV: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

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]
> På 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.
>