[members-discuss] FW: Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012
Dariusz Siedlecki d.siedlecki at futuroexito.pl
Thu Oct 13 11:20:34 CEST 2011
W dniu 13.10.2011 10:55, poty at iiat.ru pisze: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Potapov Vladislav > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:27 PM > To: 'Nigel Titley' > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme > 2012 > > Nigel, > Yes, LIR can charge the end user for this service, but the artificial > "protection" measures have led to strange "side effects", which I'll try > to explain in the real numbers of one of the LIRs I administer: > What the LIR has: > PA: 1x /19 > AS: 1 > Client PI: 1x /23 > Client AS: 1 > As you can see - nothing special and abusive? But let's think about that > once more: > - according to the PA allocation and LIRs ASN I'd pay in 2012: > Category=M,>20 but<=19 IPv4,>8 but<=16 ASN = 2000 euro + 50 euro (1 > ASN)= 2050 euro > - serving the client's resources in addition: > Category=L,>19 but<=16 IPv4,>16 but<=32 ASN = 3000 euro + 150 euro > (2 ASN + PI)= 3150 euro > So the "protective measures" costs the LIR legally serving only [1 PI > assignment with ASN] additional 1100 euro or 550 euro for a "independent > resource". Is it fair? How could the LIR count how much the client > should pay for the resources if every year RIPE NCC invents new charging > scheme with such huge deviations? > > IF (I pointed out once more - IF) the scheme should be voted - it MUST > have some "independent resources margin" like it has about ASNs, but not > pile up all addresses chunks. > > I should clarify my position about the three supporting documents listed > in the GM 2011 agenda. > - I'm not against rising budget, but the rise should be clearly > explained. In this case the Activity Plan should have all the necessary > cost values, the Budget - clear explanation what the additional expenses > will go, Charging Scheme should be stable to be able to predict LIRs > expenses. (Side note: if a company due to a very good business plan has > unnecessary 1k-2k euro to pay for bad work of financial department of > RIPE NCC, it could as well send the money to me - I'm very welcomed this > motion. :) ). > - The proposed Charging Scheme has not achieved declared goal - > simplicity and in my opinion became even more tough to understand and > have many dishonest issues. Then for the 2012 the Charging Scheme should > be saved from 2011. > > Regards, > Vladislav Potapov > Ru.iiat > > I agree 100% with Vladislav. We have agreements with clients for a small charge - maybe twice more than resource fee (50E) in RIPE. Sometimes there are very small clients but they need to have PI because of the way of working. Nowadays income from the clients isn't bigger but is less and less year by year because of competition on the market. This what you plan with 2012 budget is like backstab for smaller ISPs, not for a big telecoms. The charing scheme from 2011 was clear. Now is much more complicated and unfathomable (like resolve problem which was easy to predict from 30 years, but now you want to clarify it in one year - only by rising fee). It is not fair. -- Dariusz Siedlecki Futuro Exito ---- 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.