From nigel at titley.com Mon Jul 9 15:23:12 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:23:12 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Message-ID: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> Dear Colleagues, In recent years, there has been much discussion about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes this feedback and has followed the discussion on the members-discuss mailing list and at RIPE NCC General Meetings. A Charging Scheme Task Force was established with representatives from different membership categories, as well as members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, in order to provide recommendations for updating the Charging Scheme model. In response to the feedback from members and the Charging Scheme Task Force, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has developed a proposal for a new Charging Scheme model. In very broad terms, this model creates a simplified fee structure where the majority of members pay the same fee. The income derived from these membership fees covers the majority of the RIPE NCC?s operational costs. The proposal is available at: www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/ We have produced this proposal in answer to members? discussion of the current Charging Scheme model and by following, as closely as possible, the recommendations of the Charging Scheme Task Force. The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback. The Executive Board will be meeting again in early August 2012 to finalise the proposal that will be presented for a formal vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2012. We urge you to send us any comments or concerns you have about the proposed model by the end of July. Please send your feedback on this proposal to the members-discuss mailing list (members-discuss at ripe.net). As ever, if you have any questions or concerns, you can also contact the RIPE NCC Executive Board directly at: exec-board at ripe.net Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman From Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com Mon Jul 9 15:42:48 2012 From: Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com (Jamie Stallwood) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:42:48 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> Message-ID: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140405FCB737@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> Hi Nigel, RIPE members, I for one welcome the proposals put forth below. I've never been happy about resource-age being a factor as I feel it plays unfairly against new entrants. Removing non inet(6)num resources from category charging is also to be welcomed. I guess some more meat with regards to the "self-declaration" will come in time from the RIPE membership. In particular, how will additional resources from allocations, or mergers & acquisitions, be admitted if these could affect the "fair" membership category, during the charging year? Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 0844 225 2888 Mob: 07795 840385 Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com NIC Handle: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: 09 July 2012 14:23 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Cc: exec-board at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Dear Colleagues, In recent years, there has been much discussion about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes this feedback and has followed the discussion on the members-discuss mailing list and at RIPE NCC General Meetings. A Charging Scheme Task Force was established with representatives from different membership categories, as well as members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, in order to provide recommendations for updating the Charging Scheme model. In response to the feedback from members and the Charging Scheme Task Force, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has developed a proposal for a new Charging Scheme model. In very broad terms, this model creates a simplified fee structure where the majority of members pay the same fee. The income derived from these membership fees covers the majority of the RIPE NCC's operational costs. -- 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. From frank at openminds.be Mon Jul 9 16:00:05 2012 From: frank at openminds.be (Frank Louwers) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:00:05 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> Message-ID: On 9 Jul 2012, at 15:23, Nigel Titley wrote: Dear Nigel, What would prevent a large LIR from picking "small" each year? Are you counting on shame and blame? How much % of the members is (currently) Small? As I have the impression it does get more expensive for them! Regards, Frank > Dear Colleagues, > > In recent years, there has been much discussion about the RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme. The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes this feedback > and > has followed the discussion on the members-discuss mailing list and at > RIPE NCC General Meetings. A Charging Scheme Task Force was > established > with representatives from different membership categories, as well as > members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, in order > to > provide recommendations for updating the Charging Scheme model. > > In response to the feedback from members and the Charging Scheme Task > Force, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has developed a proposal for a new > Charging Scheme model. In very broad terms, this model creates a > simplified fee structure where the majority of members pay the same > fee. > The income derived from these membership fees covers the majority of > the > RIPE NCC?s operational costs. > > The proposal is available at: > www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/ > > We have produced this proposal in answer to members? discussion of > the > current Charging Scheme model and by following, as closely as > possible, > the recommendations of the Charging Scheme Task Force. The purpose of > publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look > at > the proposed new model and to give their feedback. > > The Executive Board will be meeting again in early August 2012 to > finalise the proposal that will be presented for a formal vote at the > RIPE NCC General Meeting 2012. We urge you to send us any comments or > concerns you have about the proposed model by the end of July. Please > send your feedback on this proposal to the members-discuss mailing > list > (members-discuss at ripe.net). > > As ever, if you have any questions or concerns, you can also contact > the > RIPE NCC Executive Board directly at: exec-board at ripe.net > > Regards, > > Nigel Titley > RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman > > ---- > 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 nigel at titley.com Mon Jul 9 16:24:02 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:24:02 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> Message-ID: <4FFAE982.70205@titley.com> On 09/07/2012 15:00, Frank Louwers wrote: > On 9 Jul 2012, at 15:23, Nigel Titley wrote: > > Dear Nigel, > > What would prevent a large LIR from picking "small" each year? Are you > counting on shame and blame? Yes indeed. Membership categories will be published. > > How much % of the members is (currently) Small? As I have the > impression it does get more expensive for them! Jochem can produce the actual figures and I'm sure he will. All the best Nigel From h.lu at outsideheaven.com Mon Jul 9 16:39:13 2012 From: h.lu at outsideheaven.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:39:13 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <4FFAEA46.2020003@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <4FFAEA46.2020003@titley.com> Message-ID: Hi Thanks for reply. On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > On 09/07/2012 14:43, Lu Heng wrote: >> >> Hi Nigel: >> >> Thanks for sharing this. >> >> Correct me if I was wrong, to put in plain english for this long formal >> thing: >> >> most pay 2k-2.5k, large ones pay 4-5k, and very small one pay 1k. per year >> base. > > Yes, correct > >> >> If that is the case, then only the current "small" category people's >> fee are raised, is that correct? > > Yes > >> >> And I am not very clear about "Appendix III: Procedure for Members >> Selecting their own Membership Category", does that means everybody >> can select their membership category in which has no relevant to their >> resource count? so french telecom can select as a small one? > > No, you are absolutely right. But membership selections will be published, > so everyone can see that France Telecom is defrauding the rest of the > members by self declaring as small. We do however think that the majority of > members are honest and have a good idea of their own size. I think you might be right about french telecom as they are national company. But for many other business ISPs, if there is no punishment or if there is only counting on shame and blames(put on Frank's word), I would say a lot large LIR would go for regular if not small.(if they being blamed, they always can find XXX company have more resource than us but also selected small etc, as long as they are not the top on the list(so to say the largest one in small category), they will stay there even blame exsits), and another thing is, I am not very sure how well this self-declared system will work. And how you plan to publish the list? will that list based on name or the amount of resource count? e.g. Small LIR: A company /13 B company /14 C company /15 etc. If this is how it published, I think it might put quite some pleasure on the guy at top of the list in each category. If not, then I think a lot people can simply hide their name into the small LIRs as I don't think many of them are well know or many people well investigate other people's fees. > >> >> I think it might be a mis-reading here could you help me to understand >> it, thanks. > > No, you have understood perfectly. > > All the best > > Nigel -- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From erik at bais.name Mon Jul 9 16:52:56 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:52:56 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Nigel, E-board & TF, Thanks for the update. I'm real happy to see some kind of normalization in the fees and agree that most of the LIR's would probably normalize into the Regular category. Question that I have is what would be the criteria between changing from / to Small, Regular or Large. Is it only based on self-selection and peer review or could someone be somewhat pushed into the right bucket? What would happen for instance if everyone (apart from a few) would select Small for instance? I understand that it is noble to think that everyone would select their own correct bucket ... but what if they don't? Regards, Erik Bais From nick at netability.ie Mon Jul 9 16:52:34 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:52:34 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> Message-ID: <4FFAF032.1040302@netability.ie> On 09/07/2012 14:23, Nigel Titley wrote: > The Executive Board will be meeting again in early August 2012 to > finalise the proposal that will be presented for a formal vote at the > RIPE NCC General Meeting 2012. We urge you to send us any comments or > concerns you have about the proposed model by the end of July. Please > send your feedback on this proposal to the members-discuss mailing list > (members-discuss at ripe.net). 1. you haven't included any sort of charging levels for any of the categories. I don't really think it's possible to give much feedback without at least some idea of where the knife will fall. 2. The document notes the following: > For the initial year of the proposed Charging Scheme, the Executive > Board proposes to set the membership categories based on the 2012 size > categories. [Extra Small becomes ?Small?; Small and Medium become > ?Regular?; and Large and Extra Large become ?Large?]. As it stands, if a new LIR requests ipv4 x /21 and ipv6 x /32 (i.e. the minimum you can really get away with for a LIR internet presence), then they are categorised as "small" rather than "extra small". The current calculation model is here: > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/billing/how-to-calculate-a-billing-score If this proposal goes through as-is, it means that all LIRs with minimum resource allocation will jolted up a second level to medium for the first year of this new scheme. So any tiny LIR which started out in the early 2000s and got themselves a single v4 + v6 allocation has been categorised as "small" rather than "extra small" since then, and will be categorised as medium for the first year when the new charging scheme comes in. This is regardless of the number of assignments made from this address space. I.e. it is regardless of the amount of resourcing it requires from the RIPE NCC's point of view. I find this to be bizarre. 3. I'm not getting why members will be able to select their own billing category. This will cause almost everyone to select "small", which will end up skewing the billing model to overcharge for genuinely small members. I'm thinking "bizarre" on this one too. Nick From nigel at titley.com Mon Jul 9 17:30:31 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:30:31 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> On 09/07/2012 15:52, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Nigel, E-board& TF, > > Thanks for the update. > > I'm real happy to see some kind of normalization in the fees and agree that most of the LIR's would probably normalize into the Regular category. > > Question that I have is what would be the criteria between changing from / to Small, Regular or Large. > Is it only based on self-selection and peer review or could someone be somewhat pushed into the right bucket? For the first year it will be derived from your existing category, after that it is self selection. > > What would happen for instance if everyone (apart from a few) would select Small for instance? > I understand that it is noble to think that everyone would select their own correct bucket ... but what if they don't? If they don't (and if everyone chooses Small for example) then the charge is equal for everyone. "Real" Small members will end up paying more than they should, "Real" Large members will end up paying less and the majority of regular members will end up paying roughly what they would be anyway. Nigel From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Jul 9 17:36:17 2012 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:36:17 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> Message-ID: Hi Thanks for reply. On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > On 09/07/2012 15:52, Erik Bais wrote: >> Hi Nigel, E-board& TF, >> >> Thanks for the update. >> >> I'm real happy to see some kind of normalization in the fees and agree that most of the LIR's would probably normalize into the Regular category. >> >> Question that I have is what would be the criteria between changing from / to Small, Regular or Large. >> Is it only based on self-selection and peer review or could someone be somewhat pushed into the right bucket? > For the first year it will be derived from your existing category, after > that it is self selection. >> >> What would happen for instance if everyone (apart from a few) would select Small for instance? >> I understand that it is noble to think that everyone would select their own correct bucket ... but what if they don't? > > If they don't (and if everyone chooses Small for example) then the > charge is equal for everyone. "Real" Small members will end up paying > more than they should, "Real" Large members will end up paying less and > the majority of regular members will end up paying roughly what they > would be anyway. Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play. But if it ends up this way, why would we need this long paper anyway, because we can replace it by one line. equally divided by member numbers. If in term of pure cost assumption, this proposal with single line should get passed.(people paying average fee will not object, and the large guys will support it, and only small guys will object it in which they will become minority in this case). If the entire charging proposal end up simply with this single line...I don't know if this will be good for all. > > Nigel > > ---- > 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. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From MEttema at alkmaar.nl Mon Jul 9 17:47:23 2012 From: MEttema at alkmaar.nl (Michiel Ettema) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:47:23 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: Hi Erik The problem with defining criteria is what they are going to be based on. Do we fall back to resource usage ? What other metrics are suited as criteria ? Maybe we should add "contributor" behind the categories and explain them as follows: Small contributor-> We're forced to use the services of RIPE NCC. We don't use them much and don't have means to support them. Regular contributor-> We're happy to use the services of RIPE NCC. We regularly use them and are OK to do our part to support them. Large contributor-> We support RIPE NCC as much as we can because they deliver invaluable services to us that we frequently use. And have the LIRs explain their choice in one or two sentences which will be published, at least to other LIRs. Regards, Michiel -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Erik Bais Verzonden: maandag 9 juli 2012 16:53 Aan: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net CC: exec-board at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Hi Nigel, E-board & TF, Thanks for the update. I'm real happy to see some kind of normalization in the fees and agree that most of the LIR's would probably normalize into the Regular category. Question that I have is what would be the criteria between changing from / to Small, Regular or Large. Is it only based on self-selection and peer review or could someone be somewhat pushed into the right bucket? What would happen for instance if everyone (apart from a few) would select Small for instance? I understand that it is noble to think that everyone would select their own correct bucket ... but what if they don't? 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. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== From nick at netability.ie Mon Jul 9 17:56:32 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:56:32 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <4FFAF032.1040302@netability.ie> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <4FFAF032.1040302@netability.ie> Message-ID: <4FFAFF30.7090608@netability.ie> On 09/07/2012 15:52, Nick Hilliard wrote: > 1. you haven't included any sort of charging levels for any of the > categories. I don't really think it's possible to give much feedback > without at least some idea of where the knife will fall. n/m this bit. Missed it when skimming over. sigh. -n From jochem at ripe.net Mon Jul 9 19:28:29 2012 From: jochem at ripe.net (Jochem de Ruig) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:28:29 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <4FFAE982.70205@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <4FFAE982.70205@titley.com> Message-ID: <168E2227-17FA-43C4-95F0-52FFE6EC0E0E@ripe.net> On Jul 9, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > On 09/07/2012 15:00, Frank Louwers wrote: >> On 9 Jul 2012, at 15:23, Nigel Titley wrote: >> >> Dear Nigel, >> >> What would prevent a large LIR from picking "small" each year? Are you counting on shame and blame? > > Yes indeed. Membership categories will be published. > >> >> How much % of the members is (currently) Small? As I have the impression it does get more expensive for them! > > Jochem can produce the actual figures and I'm sure he will. > Currently about 50% of the members is in the Small category. These are the membership figures per 30 June 2012: Extra Small: 2,241 Small: 4,071 Medium: 1,461 Large: 290 Extra Large: 72 Total: 8,135 Regards, Jochem > All the best > > Nigel > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1735 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de Mon Jul 9 20:31:28 2012 From: ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de (Thomas Jacob) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:31:28 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> Message-ID: <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:36 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: [... what's to stop members from simply choosing the lowest category ...] > Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play. Yes that's really the question. I'd rather doubt that this "pay as much as you think you want to afford" concept is something that is likely to work well with an essential technical service that few people outside the technical realm are even aware off. Especially since these fees are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this? And if indeed large swathes of members will asses themselves to be of "category" small, wouldn't we really just be created an increase for the smalls by stealth (or a massive downward pressure on the RIPE NCC budget, depending how the real smalls will react). IMO, if the aim is to keep different fee categories alive in the long term for members with resource allocation levels (which on balance should be proportional a member's financials), why not simply tweak the current charging scheme a bit, and still have bands based on actual resource usage. If you really want to make a revolutionary change to the charging system, instead of keeping the essentially arbitrary bands we have today, we should either go for a system where everyone pays the same (and thus annoy the smalls but be honest about it right away) or a system that is truly proportional to resource allocation levels (and thus annoy the larges but also create some pressure to not sit on unused allocations). Otherwise why no not simply keep the existing system essentially as it is, which at least ensures that new entrance don't have to pay all that much and that the influence of larges is kept at bay (which BTW is big enough as it is as they can actually afford the people to meddle in RIPE affairs a lot more aggressively ;-). But maybe I am simply missing several years of debate on the topic here.... From stievano at windnet.it Mon Jul 9 20:31:29 2012 From: stievano at windnet.it (stievano at windnet.it) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:31:29 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> Message-ID: <4FFB2381.4070804@windnet.it> Dear Nigel If I understand with the scheme proposed: Extra Small: 2,241 ---> become Small (EUR 1000-1250 for year) Small: 4,071 Medium: 1,461 ---> become Regular (EUR 2000-2500 for year) Large: 290 Extra Large: 72 ---> become Large (EUR 4000-5000 for year) My interpretation is correct? Thank Roberto Stievano SrNet srl Via U. Foscolo, 12 35131 Padova Tel. 0497388283-0493007945 Cell. 3484135203 E-mail: stievano at windnet.it Il 09/07/2012 15:23, Nigel Titley ha scritto: > Dear Colleagues, > > In recent years, there has been much discussion about the RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme. The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes this feedback and > has followed the discussion on the members-discuss mailing list and at > RIPE NCC General Meetings. A Charging Scheme Task Force was established > with representatives from different membership categories, as well as > members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, in order to > provide recommendations for updating the Charging Scheme model. > > In response to the feedback from members and the Charging Scheme Task > Force, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has developed a proposal for a new > Charging Scheme model. In very broad terms, this model creates a > simplified fee structure where the majority of members pay the same fee. > The income derived from these membership fees covers the majority of the > RIPE NCC?s operational costs. > > The proposal is available at: > www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/ > > We have produced this proposal in answer to members? discussion of the > current Charging Scheme model and by following, as closely as possible, > the recommendations of the Charging Scheme Task Force. The purpose of > publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at > the proposed new model and to give their feedback. > > The Executive Board will be meeting again in early August 2012 to > finalise the proposal that will be presented for a formal vote at the > RIPE NCC General Meeting 2012. We urge you to send us any comments or > concerns you have about the proposed model by the end of July. Please > send your feedback on this proposal to the members-discuss mailing list > (members-discuss at ripe.net). > > As ever, if you have any questions or concerns, you can also contact the > RIPE NCC Executive Board directly at: exec-board at ripe.net > > Regards, > > Nigel Titley > RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman > > ---- > 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 h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Jul 9 20:43:18 2012 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:43:18 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> Message-ID: Hi On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Thomas Jacob wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:36 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > [... what's to stop members from simply choosing the lowest > category ...] >> Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play. > > Yes that's really the question. I'd rather doubt that this "pay as much > as you think you want to afford" concept is something that is likely to > work well with an essential technical service that few people outside > the technical realm are even aware off. Especially since these fees > are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their > companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever > take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they > see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost > no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this? > > And if indeed large swathes of members will asses themselves to be > of "category" small, wouldn't we really just be created an > increase for the smalls by stealth (or a massive downward pressure > on the RIPE NCC budget, depending how the real smalls will react). > > IMO, if the aim is to keep different fee categories alive in the long > term for members with resource allocation levels (which on balance > should be proportional a member's financials), why not simply > tweak the current charging scheme a bit, and still have bands > based on actual resource usage. > > If you really want to make a revolutionary change to the charging > system, instead of keeping the essentially arbitrary bands we > have today, we should either go for a system where everyone pays the > same (and thus annoy the smalls but be honest about it right > away) or a system that is truly proportional to resource allocation > levels (and thus annoy the larges but also create some pressure > to not sit on unused allocations). Just want to make a quick common..."create some pressure on unused allocation" is largely untrue if you consider the IP price is at least 10USD and up. or you consider these large LIR's business size. I believe all of them have no problem paying 10K euro a year. > > Otherwise why no not simply keep the existing system essentially > as it is, which at least ensures that new entrance don't have > to pay all that much and that the influence of larges is kept > at bay (which BTW is big enough as it is as they can actually afford the > people to meddle in RIPE affairs a lot more aggressively ;-). > > But maybe I am simply missing several years of debate on the > topic here.... > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de Mon Jul 9 21:07:46 2012 From: ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de (Thomas Jacob) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:07:46 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> Message-ID: <1341860866.16998.42.camel@jacob-ubuntu> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:43 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > Just want to make a quick common..."create some pressure on unused > allocation" is largely untrue if you consider the IP price is at least > 10USD and up. or you consider these large LIR's business size. > > I believe all of them have no problem paying 10K euro a year. Not so sure about this, just going by IPv4, if we assume something RIPE like 600m IPv4 addresses for the total RIPE area, and assume that a large multi-national LIR maybe has an allocation of 30m, give a 20m RIPE budget makes about EUR 1m. Now this LIR would probably still have no problem paying that, but I guess the relevant department will have some explaining to do for this budget item ;) Still you are probably right, the financial pressure wouldn't be big enough to return unused allocations. Of course, the real trick is to factor in every increasing IPv6 allocations, so a continuous reduction of costs per IP should probably be in order, but I guess people wouldn't mind if their projected costs are lower than expected in some years. From ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de Mon Jul 9 21:13:10 2012 From: ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de (Thomas Jacob) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:13:10 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> Message-ID: <1341861190.19342.2.camel@jacob-ubuntu> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:43 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > Just want to make a quick common..."create some pressure on unused > allocation" is largely untrue if you consider the IP price is at least > 10USD and up. or you consider these large LIR's business size. > > I believe all of them have no problem paying 10K euro a year. Not so sure about this, just going by IPv4 allocations, if we assume something like 600m IPv4 addresses for the total RIPE area, and assume that a large multi-national LIR maybe has an allocation of 30m, given a 20m RIPE budget makes about EUR 1m anually. Now this LIR would probably still have no problem paying that, but I guess the relevant department will have some explaining to do for this budget item ;) Still you are probably right, the financial pressure wouldn't be big enough to return unused allocations. Of course, the real trick is to factor in ever increasing IPv6 allocations, so a continuous reduction of the costs per IP should probably be in order, but I guess people wouldn't mind if their projected costs are lower than expected in some years. From rhe at nosc.ja.net Mon Jul 9 22:45:39 2012 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 21:45:39 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> Message-ID: <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> > Especially since these fees > are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their > companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever > take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they > see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost > no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this? This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do). I am very curious to see how this would work out, and I am also intrigued by the earlier suggestion of a 'contribution level' scheme. I have a few concerns about year-on-year classification, and whether this will end up being used as another method for a vote on what the NCC is doing. I also wonder if there will be an annual round of finger-pointing over membership levels, and I have some concerns about the wording of the phrases around legacy resource holders. Notwithstanding those, I like simple things, and pending some more discussion with my colleagues, I think I'd support this scheme. Rob From technik at eifel-net.net Mon Jul 9 17:43:17 2012 From: technik at eifel-net.net (eifel-net GmbH) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:43:17 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> Hello, for us the new charging model seems to be unbalanced. Bigger LIR, as for example big telcos (Deutsche Telekom in germany for example with lots of ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 they use, compared to small onces, as there is a fee-limit of aprox. 5000 EUR yearly. For smaller companies the new model will be an increase in cost, as the border to small as /22 is not high enough, so that they will be billed as regular (thus 50% of big LIR!). Next problem is, that big LIR may pick category "small" without beeing punished. Peter ============================================== Angaben gem. ? 35a GmbHG ============================================== EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH vertreten durch die Gesch?ftsf?hrer Michael Bergeritz Dipl.- Kfm. Peter Thiele Bendenstr.31-33, 53879 Euskirchen Tel. 0900-524 5 524 (0,99 EUR/Min aus dem deutschen Festnetz, Preis kann f?r Anrufe aus den Mobilfunknetzen abweichen.) (Installationsunterst?tzung Einrichten Internet-Zugang) Tel. 02251-9700-36 Fax. 02251-9700-37 (nicht nutzbar f?r Werbezwecke) eMail: info at eifel-net.net (nicht nutzbar f?r Werbezwecke) EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH ist eingetragen im Handelregister des Amtsgericht Bonn unter Registernummer HRB11527. Die Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer lautet DE186 267 460. Wir teilen hiermit offenkundig mit, da? wir keine Zusendung von Werbung per eMail oder Fax w?nschen, wenn wir dieser vorher nicht ausdr?cklich schriftlich zugestimmt haben. From jacob at internet24.de Mon Jul 9 20:30:17 2012 From: jacob at internet24.de (Thomas Jacob) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:30:17 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> Message-ID: <1341858617.16998.32.camel@jacob-ubuntu> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:36 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: [... what's to stop members from simply choosing the lowest category ...] > Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play. Yes that's really the question. I'd rather doubt that this "pay as much as you think you want to afford" concept is something that is likely to work well with an essential technical service that few people outside the technical realm are even aware off. Especially since these fees are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this? And if indeed large swathes of members will asses themselves to be of "category" small, wouldn't we really just be created an increase for the smalls by stealth (or a massive downward pressure on the RIPE NCC budget, depending how the real smalls will react). IMO, if the aim is to keep different fee categories alive in the long term for members with resource allocation levels (which on balance should be proportional a member's financials), why not simply tweak the current charging scheme a bit, and still have bands based on actual resource usage. If you really want to make a revolutionary change to the charging system, instead of keeping the essentially arbitrary bands we have today, we should either go for a system where everyone pays the same (and thus annoy the smalls but be honest about it right away) or a system that is truly proportional to resource allocation levels (and thus annoy the larges but also create some pressure to not sit on unused allocations). Otherwise why no not simply keep the existing system essentially as it is, which at least ensures that new entrance don't have to pay all that much and that the influence of larges is kept at bay (which BTW is big enough as it is as they can actually afford the people to meddle in RIPE affairs a lot more aggressively ;-). But maybe I am simply missing several years of debate on the topic here.... From wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net Tue Jul 10 10:03:03 2012 From: wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net (Wolfgang Tremmel) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:03:03 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> Message-ID: <5518F27C-638F-4A42-918E-ED9998DAE268@de-cix.net> Hello, On 09.07.2012, at 17:43, eifel-net GmbH wrote: > ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 > they use, compared to small onces, as there is a fee-limit of aprox. 5000 you do not pay for addresses. you do not pay for addresses. Please write 500 times. > EUR yearly. For smaller companies the new model will be an increase in > cost, as the border to small as /22 is not high enough, so that they will > be billed as regular (thus 50% of big LIR!). Next problem is, that big LIR > may pick category "small" without beeing punished. working in customer support the reality is that the amount of support a company needs is independent of the size. Often smaller companies even need more support then the big ones. If you want to be a LIR you have to pay for it (it = the service). Otherwise get addresses from your upstream and be happy with it. I (as a private internet citizen) support the new model (although I think that self-assessment is not such a good idea). best regards, Wolfgang From daniel.sendin at simfonics.com Tue Jul 10 10:21:32 2012 From: daniel.sendin at simfonics.com (Daniel Sendin Dahlke) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:21:32 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> Message-ID: Hi Peter, I am with your opinion. We should promote SMBs since they are the base ground of the whole economy. Now in crisis times promote iniciatives is all about. Regards, Daniel Sendin Dahlke El 09/07/2012, a las 17:43, eifel-net GmbH escribi?: > Hello, > > for us the new charging model seems to be unbalanced. Bigger LIR, as for > example big telcos (Deutsche Telekom in germany for example with lots of > ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 > they use, compared to small onces, as there is a fee-limit of aprox. 5000 > EUR yearly. For smaller companies the new model will be an increase in > cost, as the border to small as /22 is not high enough, so that they will > be billed as regular (thus 50% of big LIR!). Next problem is, that big LIR > may pick category "small" without beeing punished. > > Peter > > > > ============================================== > Angaben gem. ? 35a GmbHG > ============================================== > EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH > vertreten durch die Gesch?ftsf?hrer > Michael Bergeritz > Dipl.- Kfm. Peter Thiele > Bendenstr.31-33, 53879 Euskirchen > Tel. 0900-524 5 524 (0,99 EUR/Min aus dem deutschen Festnetz, Preis kann f?r > Anrufe aus den Mobilfunknetzen abweichen.) > (Installationsunterst?tzung Einrichten Internet-Zugang) > Tel. 02251-9700-36 > Fax. 02251-9700-37 (nicht nutzbar f?r Werbezwecke) > eMail: info at eifel-net.net (nicht nutzbar f?r Werbezwecke) > > EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH ist eingetragen im > Handelregister des Amtsgericht Bonn unter Registernummer HRB11527. > Die Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer lautet DE186 267 460. > > Wir teilen hiermit offenkundig mit, da? wir keine Zusendung von Werbung > per eMail oder Fax w?nschen, wenn wir dieser vorher nicht ausdr?cklich > schriftlich zugestimmt haben. > > > ---- > 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 comunicaciones at acotelsa.com Tue Jul 10 10:59:49 2012 From: comunicaciones at acotelsa.com (Comunicaciones ACOTELSA) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:59:49 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> Message-ID: <007601cd5e7a$5d673b80$1835b280$@acotelsa.com> I'm agree. And with declarations like Wolfgang did, the big company are very happy. ("If you want to be a LIR you have to pay for it"). The model is better for the big company (go to congress because they could and make lobby). They have departments only to work in this. It??s a loss battle and we could speak long time about this but at the end, they have the power and they support RIPE. Saludos... =========================================== Luis ??ngel Lozano Aparicio Comunicaciones y Seguridad Grupo Acotel e-mail: comunicaciones at acotelsa.com ------------------------------------------ Tlf: 983 440274 - 902 194273 Fax:983 548220 Oficina 201 - Edificio Galileo, m??dulo Rojo Parque Tecnol??gico de Boecillo 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - Espa??a =========================================== -----Mensaje original----- De: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] En nombre de Daniel Sendin Dahlke Enviado el: martes, 10 de julio de 2012 10:22 Para: eifel-net GmbH CC: members-discuss at ripe.net Asunto: Re: [members-discuss] New charging model Hi Peter, I am with your opinion. We should promote SMBs since they are the base ground of the whole economy. Now in crisis times promote iniciatives is all about. Regards, Daniel Sendin Dahlke El 09/07/2012, a las 17:43, eifel-net GmbH escribi??: > Hello, > > for us the new charging model seems to be unbalanced. Bigger LIR, as for > example big telcos (Deutsche Telekom in germany for example with lots of > ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 > they use, compared to small onces, as there is a fee-limit of aprox. 5000 > EUR yearly. For smaller companies the new model will be an increase in > cost, as the border to small as /22 is not high enough, so that they will > be billed as regular (thus 50% of big LIR!). Next problem is, that big LIR > may pick category "small" without beeing punished. > > Peter > > > > ============================================== > Angaben gem. ?? 35a GmbHG > ============================================== > EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH > vertreten durch die Gesch??ftsf??hrer > Michael Bergeritz > Dipl.- Kfm. Peter Thiele > Bendenstr.31-33, 53879 Euskirchen > Tel. 0900-524 5 524 (0,99 EUR/Min aus dem deutschen Festnetz, Preis kann f??r > Anrufe aus den Mobilfunknetzen abweichen.) > (Installationsunterst??tzung Einrichten Internet-Zugang) > Tel. 02251-9700-36 > Fax. 02251-9700-37 (nicht nutzbar f??r Werbezwecke) > eMail: info at eifel-net.net (nicht nutzbar f??r Werbezwecke) > > EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH ist eingetragen im > Handelregister des Amtsgericht Bonn unter Registernummer HRB11527. > Die Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer lautet DE186 267 460. > > Wir teilen hiermit offenkundig mit, da?? wir keine Zusendung von Werbung > per eMail oder Fax w??nschen, wenn wir dieser vorher nicht ausdr??cklich > schriftlich zugestimmt haben. > > > ---- > 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. -- Mensaje analizado por el sistema de deteccion de virus y antispam de ACOTEL. El hecho de que dicho mensaje haya sido tratado NO excluye que pueda contener virus no catalogados a fecha de hoy. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Message analyzed by the Antispam-Virus Detection System at ACOTEL. The fact tha this message has passed analysis does not exclude the posibility of being infected by an undetected virus. Protecci?n de Datos: ACOTELSA le informa de que los datos facilitados por Ud. y utilizados para el env?o de esta comunicaci?n ser?n objeto de tratamiento automatizado o no en nuestros ficheros, con la finalidad de gestionar la agenda de contactos de nuestra empresa y para el env?o de comunicaciones profesionales por cualquier medio electr?nico o no. Vd. podr? en cualquier momento ejercer el derecho de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y oposici?n en los t?rminos establecidos en la Ley Org?nica 15/1999. El responsable del tratamiento es ACOTELSA, con domicilio en Ronda de Poniente, 3 bajo, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid. Confidencialidad El contenido de esta comunicaci?n, as? como el de toda la documentaci?n anexa, es confidencial y va dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mismo. En el supuesto de que usted no fuera el destinatario, le solicitamos que nos lo indique y no comunique su contenido a terceros, procediendo a su destrucci?n. Gracias. Confidenciality The content of this communication and any attached information is confidential and exclusively for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, we ask you to notify to the sender and do not pass its content to another person, and please be sure you destroy it. Thank you. From erik at bais.name Tue Jul 10 11:46:42 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:46:42 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C1@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Peter, The numbers are currently this: Extra Small: 2,241 Small: 4,071 Medium: 1,461 Large: 290 Extra Large: 72 Total: 8,135 That means that from 8135 LIRs in total, only 290 large and 72 are extra large in the current charging model, which is only 0,04449 % of the total population. Let's take a step to the side and compare this to for instance the US wealth distribution: > In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. > Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7% Source: Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth with reference to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-and-the-rhetoric-of-equality/ However, guess how that distribution is at the US Senate? More than 50% of the voting Senators are multimillionaires, who probably are in the top 20% of the Americans income wise. And if you go back to the RIPE AGM meeting ... guess who is attending and voting? I'm guessing around 300 people in the room and most likely around 150 votes are counted. (feel free to correct me on the actual numbers, but this is my gut feeling..) If you think the model is unbalanced, feel free to see if there is another model, however any kind of category based on prior possession or usage of v4 IP's is short lived imho. The large telco's all have the same voting power as the smaller LIR's, but if the 'other 99%' doesn't bother to show up, or vote or provide a proxy form for someone else to vote on their behalf. . . . Yes it is good to discuss this here on the mailing list with a Passion, but if you don't really up enough supporters to vote in your favor on the AGM where the actual voting is done ... Personally I don't think that we should ANY kind of usage based linking or size system. And with 68% of the total members in the Regular bucket currently, I think it is a good step forward as it is a good representation of the membership. On the sign-up / intake of the extra small / new lir's. Perhaps there should be a growing path to the regular bucket (initial 1 or 2 year increases towards regular), rather than a chose your own category. And for the extra large LIR's ? Who cares ... they are not any more special than any other LIR and with only 0,04449% of the total membership, why bother adding an extra category ... Regards, Erik Bais From h.lu at outsideheaven.com Tue Jul 10 11:50:22 2012 From: h.lu at outsideheaven.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:50:22 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C1@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C1@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: Hi On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Peter, > > The numbers are currently this: > > Extra Small: 2,241 > Small: 4,071 > Medium: 1,461 > Large: 290 > Extra Large: 72 > Total: 8,135 > > That means that from 8135 LIRs in total, only 290 large and 72 are extra large in the current charging model, which is only 0,04449 % of the total population. > > Let's take a step to the side and compare this to for instance the US wealth distribution: > >> In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. >> Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7% > Source: Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth with reference to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-and-the-rhetoric-of-equality/ > > However, guess how that distribution is at the US Senate? More than 50% of the voting Senators are multimillionaires, who probably are in the top 20% of the Americans income wise. > > And if you go back to the RIPE AGM meeting ... guess who is attending and voting? I'm guessing around 300 people in the room and most likely around 150 votes are counted. (feel free to correct me on the actual numbers, but this is my gut feeling..) > > If you think the model is unbalanced, feel free to see if there is another model, however any kind of category based on prior possession or usage of v4 IP's is short lived imho. > > The large telco's all have the same voting power as the smaller LIR's, but if the 'other 99%' doesn't bother to show up, or vote or provide a proxy form for someone else to vote on their behalf. . . . > > Yes it is good to discuss this here on the mailing list with a Passion, but if you don't really up enough supporters to vote in your favor on the AGM where the actual voting is done ... > > Personally I don't think that we should ANY kind of usage based linking or size system. And with 68% of the total members in the Regular bucket currently, I think it is a good step forward as it is a good representation of the membership. > > On the sign-up / intake of the extra small / new lir's. Perhaps there should be a growing path to the regular bucket (initial 1 or 2 year increases towards regular), rather than a chose your own category. > > And for the extra large LIR's ? Who cares ... they are not any more special than any other LIR and with only 0,04449% of the total membership, why bother adding an extra category ... Just a quick common, these 0.0XXX% of member represent of 99.XX% resource usage,correct me if I am wrong. > > 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. -- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From comunicaciones at acotelsa.com Tue Jul 10 11:56:22 2012 From: comunicaciones at acotelsa.com (Comunicaciones ACOTELSA) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:56:22 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C1@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <009501cd5e82$44163d40$cc42b7c0$@acotelsa.com> That is Erik. The numbers could be used as you want. It?s like the economic problems, but the politic must be about it to work to be fair. Saludos... =========================================== Luis ?ngel Lozano Aparicio Comunicaciones y Seguridad Grupo Acotel e-mail: comunicaciones at acotelsa.com ------------------------------------------ Tlf: 983 440274 - 902 194273 Fax:983 548220 Oficina 201 - Edificio Galileo, m?dulo Rojo Parque Tecnol?gico de Boecillo 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - Espa?a =========================================== -----Mensaje original----- De: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] En nombre de Lu Heng Enviado el: martes, 10 de julio de 2012 11:50 Para: Erik Bais CC: eifel-net GmbH; members-discuss at ripe.net Asunto: Re: [members-discuss] New charging model Hi On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Peter, > > The numbers are currently this: > > Extra Small: 2,241 > Small: 4,071 > Medium: 1,461 > Large: 290 > Extra Large: 72 > Total: 8,135 > > That means that from 8135 LIRs in total, only 290 large and 72 are extra large in the current charging model, which is only 0,04449 % of the total population. > > Let's take a step to the side and compare this to for instance the US wealth distribution: > >> In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. >> Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, >> with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of >> Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7% > Source: Wikipedia - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth with reference to: > http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-stre > et-and-the-rhetoric-of-equality/ > > However, guess how that distribution is at the US Senate? More than 50% of the voting Senators are multimillionaires, who probably are in the top 20% of the Americans income wise. > > And if you go back to the RIPE AGM meeting ... guess who is attending > and voting? I'm guessing around 300 people in the room and most likely > around 150 votes are counted. (feel free to correct me on the actual > numbers, but this is my gut feeling..) > > If you think the model is unbalanced, feel free to see if there is another model, however any kind of category based on prior possession or usage of v4 IP's is short lived imho. > > The large telco's all have the same voting power as the smaller LIR's, but if the 'other 99%' doesn't bother to show up, or vote or provide a proxy form for someone else to vote on their behalf. . . . > > Yes it is good to discuss this here on the mailing list with a Passion, but if you don't really up enough supporters to vote in your favor on the AGM where the actual voting is done ... > > Personally I don't think that we should ANY kind of usage based linking or size system. And with 68% of the total members in the Regular bucket currently, I think it is a good step forward as it is a good representation of the membership. > > On the sign-up / intake of the extra small / new lir's. Perhaps there should be a growing path to the regular bucket (initial 1 or 2 year increases towards regular), rather than a chose your own category. > > And for the extra large LIR's ? Who cares ... they are not any more special than any other LIR and with only 0,04449% of the total membership, why bother adding an extra category ... Just a quick common, these 0.0XXX% of member represent of 99.XX% resource usage,correct me if I am wrong. > > 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. -- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- 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. -- Mensaje analizado por el sistema de deteccion de virus y antispam de ACOTEL. El hecho de que dicho mensaje haya sido tratado NO excluye que pueda contener virus no catalogados a fecha de hoy. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Message analyzed by the Antispam-Virus Detection System at ACOTEL. The fact tha this message has passed analysis does not exclude the posibility of being infected by an undetected virus. Protecci?n de Datos: ACOTELSA le informa de que los datos facilitados por Ud. y utilizados para el env?o de esta comunicaci?n ser?n objeto de tratamiento automatizado o no en nuestros ficheros, con la finalidad de gestionar la agenda de contactos de nuestra empresa y para el env?o de comunicaciones profesionales por cualquier medio electr?nico o no. Vd. podr? en cualquier momento ejercer el derecho de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y oposici?n en los t?rminos establecidos en la Ley Org?nica 15/1999. El responsable del tratamiento es ACOTELSA, con domicilio en Ronda de Poniente, 3 bajo, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid. Confidencialidad El contenido de esta comunicaci?n, as? como el de toda la documentaci?n anexa, es confidencial y va dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mismo. En el supuesto de que usted no fuera el destinatario, le solicitamos que nos lo indique y no comunique su contenido a terceros, procediendo a su destrucci?n. Gracias. Confidenciality The content of this communication and any attached information is confidential and exclusively for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, we ask you to notify to the sender and do not pass its content to another person, and please be sure you destroy it. Thank you. From Christoph.Neukirch at xing.com Tue Jul 10 11:57:27 2012 From: Christoph.Neukirch at xing.com (Christoph Neukirch) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:57:27 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C1@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: Hi, Am 10.07.12 11:46 schrieb "Erik Bais" unter : >Hi Peter, > >The numbers are currently this: > >Extra Small: 2,241 >Small: 4,071 >Medium: 1,461 >Large: 290 >Extra Large: 72 >Total: 8,135 > >That means that from 8135 LIRs in total, only 290 large and 72 are extra >large in the current charging model, which is only 0,04449 % of the total >population. I don't have to be a math genius to know this is totally wrong. How can 362 out of 8135 be less then one percent? It must be nearly 5 percent. 4,45 percent sounds "a bit" more reasonable to me. kind regards Christoph From erik at bais.name Tue Jul 10 12:06:21 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:06:21 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C1@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C2@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Lu, > Just a quick common, these 0.0XXX% of member represent of 99.XX% resource usage,correct me if I am wrong. I'm not sure what the actual resource usage is by them, but will the number of v4 still matter post v4 depletion and everyone needs to go to v6 ? Would they also use actual RIPE NCC resources (personnel) at the same rate ? That is a much more interesting question imho, FTE usage will be a much bigger factor to count towards. The changes are, that the smaller LIR's (due to in-experience) take much longer to obtain additional assignments / allocations than larger (seasoned LIR's). I know a couple LIR's (probably medium ranked currently) which received a /19 or /18 between 2002 and 2005 and are still using that same prefix and haven't been back to the hostmasters since. Resource usages (in IP addresses) doesn't say much imho as it doesn't give a real indication on actual FTE usage in the RIPE office or the services used. Erik Bais From erik at bais.name Tue Jul 10 12:10:30 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:10:30 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C1@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C3@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Chris, > 4,45 percent sounds "a bit" more reasonable to me. You are correct. Erik From h.lu at outsideheaven.com Tue Jul 10 12:10:45 2012 From: h.lu at outsideheaven.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:10:45 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C2@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C1@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C2@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: Hi On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Lu, > >> Just a quick common, these 0.0XXX% of member represent of 99.XX% resource usage,correct me if I am wrong. > > I'm not sure what the actual resource usage is by them, but will the number of v4 still matter post v4 depletion and everyone needs to go to v6 ? > > Would they also use actual RIPE NCC resources (personnel) at the same rate ? That is a much more interesting question imho, FTE usage will be a much bigger factor to count towards. > The changes are, that the smaller LIR's (due to in-experience) take much longer to obtain additional assignments / allocations than larger (seasoned LIR's). > I know a couple LIR's (probably medium ranked currently) which received a /19 or /18 between 2002 and 2005 and are still using that same prefix and haven't been back to the hostmasters since. > > Resource usages (in IP addresses) doesn't say much imho as it doesn't give a real indication on actual FTE usage in the RIPE office or the services used. If only the Ripe service time usage is the matter, why not we charge LIR by flat hourly rate? The reason we are not I think is because internet is a community, billiionairs who already made a lot money in the business shouldn't ask more from new comers just because they ask too many questions. Every body are once a newbie. So we should lower the barriers of the community in order to have more people to join. > > Erik Bais > > > -- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Jul 10 12:19:59 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:19:59 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> Message-ID: <20120710101959.GA30869@cilantro.c4inet.net> All, On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 05:43:17PM +0200, eifel-net GmbH wrote: >for us the new charging model seems to be unbalanced. Bigger LIR, as for >example big telcos (Deutsche Telekom in germany for example with lots of >ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 the flat charging model is actually eminently forward-looking insofar as if ipv6 ever gets deployed, there should be reasonably little difference in the amount of allocations the LIRs hold. Now, if anyone wants to have another discussion on how to reign in budget inflation in the NCC, I'm game :) rgds, Sascha Luck From nick at netability.ie Tue Jul 10 12:29:25 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:29:25 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C2@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C1@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57C2@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <4FFC0405.7010305@netability.ie> On 10/07/2012 11:06, Erik Bais wrote: > Resource usages (in IP addresses) doesn't say much imho as it doesn't > give a real indication on actual FTE usage in the RIPE office or the > services used. Number resource usage doesn't say much until the day that the RIPE NCC performs an audit on the member. Nick From michal.margula at acsystemy.pl Tue Jul 10 12:36:44 2012 From: michal.margula at acsystemy.pl (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Margula?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:36:44 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> Message-ID: <4FFC05BC.5080207@acsystemy.pl> W dniu 09.07.2012 17:43, eifel-net GmbH pisze: > Hello, > > for us the new charging model seems to be unbalanced. Bigger LIR, as for > example big telcos (Deutsche Telekom in germany for example with lots of > ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 > they use, compared to small onces, as there is a fee-limit of aprox. 5000 > EUR yearly. For smaller companies the new model will be an increase in > cost, as the border to small as /22 is not high enough, so that they will > be billed as regular (thus 50% of big LIR!). Next problem is, that big LIR > may pick category "small" without beeing punished. > > Peter > I don't really get that. It happens on the list from time to time, when people start to complaing about charging. The truth is if you are planning to be a LIR it means that you are no longer a little company, because if you were, you could stay with PA from your ISP oraz PI if multihomed. We did it that way for years but then our upstream ISP refused giving more PI so we had to become a LIR. You need to pay for the rent, upstreams bandwith, electricity, and so on. RIPE fee is another on the list. So if you are whining about 2.5k EUR of yearly payment then you should rethink your buissness. If you get /22 it is 1024 addresses, substracting this and that (devices, routers, servers) you can cover about 800 customers, each and every one with own public IP. It means that you need to pay about 3 EUR a year per customer. It is about 26 euro cents per month. That amount is so ridicoulus, that you should spend more time expanding your network than complaining about RIPE fees. My two cents. Have a nice day -- Micha? Margula :: AC Systemy Komputerowe Stanis?aw Bor sp??ka jawna 72-600 ?winouj?cie :: ul. Bohater?w Wrze?nia 50/4 :: NIP 855-12-99-281 From ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de Tue Jul 10 13:53:18 2012 From: ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de (Thomas Jacob) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:53:18 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] New charging model In-Reply-To: <4FFC05BC.5080207@acsystemy.pl> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20120709172940.03c91e90@mail.eifel-net.net> <4FFC05BC.5080207@acsystemy.pl> Message-ID: <1341921198.31401.16.camel@jacob-ubuntu> > If you get /22 it is 1024 addresses, substracting this and that > (devices, routers, servers) you can cover about 800 customers, each and > every one with own public IP. It means that you need to pay about 3 EUR > a year per customer. It is about 26 euro cents per month. That amount is > so ridicoulus, that you should spend more time expanding your network > than complaining about RIPE fees. If we agree to this reasoning, why not have a system where your fee is proportional to the amount of resources you are allocated? For obviously this is also true if you are a bigger company with more customers? If the argument is that you don't use 256 times as many RIPE resources if you have a /8 instead of a /16, one could always go for APNIC-style formulae: http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost From ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de Tue Jul 10 14:13:32 2012 From: ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de (Thomas Jacob) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:13:32 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <1341922412.31401.31.camel@jacob-ubuntu> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 21:45 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: > This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill > that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," > will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do). Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one. As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing. From Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com Tue Jul 10 14:34:32 2012 From: Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com (Jamie Stallwood) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:34:32 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? Message-ID: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140452E6@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> A flat fee would disadvantage small members even more as the "regular" fee would apply. I don't want to see membership being priced out so I support the simpler banded system proposed. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Sent from my Android Secured with Good (www.good.com) Managed by Imerja -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Jacob [ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 01:15 PM GMT Standard Time To: Rob Evans Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; exec-board at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 21:45 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: > This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill > that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," > will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do). Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one. As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing. ---- 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. -- 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 gert at space.net Tue Jul 10 14:44:58 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:44:58 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140452E6@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> References: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140452E6@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> Message-ID: <20120710124458.GS38127@Space.Net> Hi, what about "everybody who brings up the same arguments that have been here a number of times half a year ago pays 50x the normal fee"? This should significantly lower the fees for everybody else. Gert Doering -- troll -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de Tue Jul 10 14:47:30 2012 From: ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de (Thomas Jacob) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:47:30 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140452E6@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> References: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140452E6@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> Message-ID: <1341924450.31401.39.camel@jacob-ubuntu> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 13:34 +0100, Jamie Stallwood wrote: > A flat fee would disadvantage small members even more as the "regular" > fee would apply. Perfectly agree, yet wouldn't this be exactly the situation we will end up with, if LIRs take would start self-assessing themselves into the small band in larger numbers? And what's to stop them from doing that? From frank at openminds.be Tue Jul 10 14:55:43 2012 From: frank at openminds.be (Frank Louwers) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:55:43 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <1341922412.31401.31.camel@jacob-ubuntu> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> <1341922412.31401.31.camel@jacob-ubuntu> Message-ID: <4FFC264F.2010704@openminds.be> > > Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of > LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of > that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? > > As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new > charge scheme worth having over the current one. > > As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the > same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler > and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the > incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing. Exactly my feelings as well. I see only three options: Option 1: Charge by amount of resources. Larger LIRs (in 99.9% of the cases the larger telco's) pay more than smaller LIRs. Some people claim this is unfair to the large ones, as support-load is not proportional to LIR size. Option 2 to overcome Option 1-problem: Charge by amount of tickets each year. Those that have resources, but require no RIPE support, pay less that those that cost much support Option 3: Everybody pays the same The option that everyone is allowed to choose how much they pay can't be taken seriously! If I wouls be a large LIR, and I am fair and choose the "Large" amount, but my direct competitor only pays the "Small" fee, even if he is about the same size as me, is unfair competition, so I as well would choose the "Small" fee. Frank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob.golding at othellotech.net Tue Jul 10 15:18:04 2012 From: rob.golding at othellotech.net (Rob Golding) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:18:04 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <4FFC264F.2010704@openminds.be> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> <1341922412.31401.31.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <4FFC264F.2010704@openminds.be> Message-ID: <018901cd5e9e$7027e980$5077bc80$@golding@othellotech.net> > Option 1: Charge by amount of resources. Larger LIRs (in 99.9% of the > cases the larger telco's) pay more than smaller LIRs. Some people claim > this is unfair to the large ones, as support-load is not proportional to > LIR size. All depends on defining the measurement technique... Number of IPs is _largely_ irrelevant, there's no additional work involved at RIPE to approve the application, no additional database overhead in having a larger inetnum etc. If you charged by DB entries, then (as seems to be the case for most LIRs anyway) people will stop creating the inetnums, maintainers, persons etc and the DB will become even more irrelevant than it already has The current system marginally favours the longer established RIPE members - afterall we're the ones who have funded the developments, the numerous projects (whether wanted or not), who've paid out for years and years to get RIPE to what it is now, read/commented/implemented the thousands of policies, attended the meetings etc All so the "newbies" can benefit from all of that investment. You might think it's perfectly "fair" to suggest/offer a system where everyone pays the same - I'm not going to disagree. How about a system where all the new entrants have to catchup on 10 years of fees they've missed, which gets shared amongst the existing members ? No one method of charging is going to appeal to everyone, no business _wants_ to pay more for something. Perhaps a better approach would be to push for the overall budget to be reduced by 10% per year _every-year_, helping the RIR focus on what it's there for, and all the extraneous items that we fund as RIPE members can start to die off ? Rob From Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com Tue Jul 10 15:12:59 2012 From: Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com (Jamie Stallwood) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:12:59 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? References: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140452E6@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> <1341924450.31401.39.camel@jacob-ubuntu> Message-ID: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140405307CA7@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> Thomas Jacob wrote: > Perfectly agree, yet wouldn't this be exactly the situation > we will end up with, if LIRs take would start self-assessing > themselves into the small band in larger numbers? And what's > to stop them from doing that? Maybe we need to prevent LIR's from moving more than one band per year, and then maybe permit changes only subject to a majority member vote? Reasons for changing would have to be submitted and published in the directory. LIR's who may be a bit "economical", shall we say, would do damage to their reputation if their vote was rejected. whatever we do, the NCC is going to have to act as final arbiter But first of course we have to agree that banding is acceptable before we can discuss the mechanisms, and as you've seen, the familiar arguments are back out. The 3(or 4? 5?)-band system broken by allocation size alone, will hopefully win that argument. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood at imerja.com -- 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 jacobi at ibh.de Tue Jul 10 15:13:17 2012 From: jacobi at ibh.de (Jacobi, Olaf) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:13:17 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <20120710124458.GS38127@Space.Net> References: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140452E6@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> <20120710124458.GS38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <58AD08D13EAEE34093BCBD388CCCD9EC02F2FA3F2368@mailbag.ibh> Nice, but to be honest: the APNIC scheme seems quite fair to me. Why not adopt something that's been working well for another RIR? A self-assessment does not sound well thought-through. It will result in vague estimates instead of facts, facts, facts. And if the very large LIR does not comply, would RIPE really de-register it? I doubt it. But if payment is based on a simple formula, then the invoice will be an automated procedure. And in case a very large LIR has many unused ressources, the incentive is there to either return them, or assign them properly, or charge his customers properly - or simply don't care and pay. Regards, Olaf >-----Original Message----- >From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- >bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering >Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:45 PM >To: members-discuss at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good >idea? > >Hi, > >what about "everybody who brings up the same arguments that have been >here a number of times half a year ago pays 50x the normal fee"? > >This should significantly lower the fees for everybody else. > >Gert Doering > -- troll -- jacobi at ibh.de Tel. +49 351 477 77 21 sales at ibh.de Fax +49 351 477 77 29 www.ibh.de GSM +49 175 290 03 48 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Olaf Jacobi Leiter Internet-Vertrieb/-Marketing IBH IT-Service GmbH Amtsgericht Dresden Gostritzer Str. 67a HRB 13626 D-01217 Dresden GF: Prof. Dr. Thomas Horn Germany VAT DE182302907 From ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de Tue Jul 10 15:53:24 2012 From: ripe-ncc-members-list at internet24.de (Thomas Jacob) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:53:24 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140405307CA7@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> References: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140452E6@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> <1341924450.31401.39.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140405307CA7@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> Message-ID: <1341928404.31401.48.camel@jacob-ubuntu> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 14:12 +0100, Jamie Stallwood wrote: > Maybe we need to prevent LIR's from moving more than one band per > year, and then maybe permit changes only subject to a majority member > vote? Reasons for changing would have to be submitted and published in > the directory. LIR's who may be a bit "economical", shall we say, > would do damage to their reputation if their vote was rejected. > whatever we do, the NCC is going to have to act as final arbiter Quite frankly, that sounds like a bureaucratic mess to me, I can't see this as a simplification compared to the current fee system. > But first of course we have to agree that banding is acceptable before > we can discuss the mechanisms, and as you've seen, the familiar > arguments are back out. The 3(or 4? 5?)-band system broken by > allocation size alone, will hopefully win that argument. > Which is more less exactly what we already have today, isn't it? From sa at rh-tec.de Tue Jul 10 15:27:07 2012 From: sa at rh-tec.de (Sebastian Abt) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:27:07 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <018901cd5e9e$7027e980$5077bc80$@golding@othellotech.net> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> <1341922412.31401.31.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <4FFC264F.2010704@openminds.be> <018901cd5e9e$7027e980$5077bc80$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <82B033F4-CC72-4094-95B4-186B01D55B63@rh-tec.de> Am 10.07.2012 um 15:18 schrieb "Rob Golding" : > Perhaps a better approach would be to push for the overall budget to be reduced by 10% per year _every-year_, helping the RIR focus on what it's there for, and all the extraneous items that we fund as RIPE members can start to die off ? +1 in principle. Exact percentage should be assessed empirically. regards sebastian From mark.jones at talktalkplc.com Tue Jul 10 18:40:08 2012 From: mark.jones at talktalkplc.com (Mark Jones (MK)) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:40:08 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <82B033F4-CC72-4094-95B4-186B01D55B63@rh-tec.de> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> <1341922412.31401.31.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <4FFC264F.2010704@openminds.be> <018901cd5e9e$7027e980$5077bc80$@golding@othellotech.net> <82B033F4-CC72-4094-95B4-186B01D55B63@rh-tec.de> Message-ID: I suspect a lot of activities/resources will die off when the NCC stock of IPV4 addresses gets exhausted. RIPE won't be involved or will be needed to approve transfer/sales of IPV4 between LIR's. Most LIR's will have /32 of IPV6 so they won't need to talk to the LIR again unless in the unlikely event they issue a /48 or more to a customer... Please disagree if I'd got this wrong. Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sebastian Abt Sent: 10 July 2012 16:24 To: rob.golding at othellotech.net Cc: Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? Am 10.07.2012 um 15:18 schrieb "Rob Golding" : > Perhaps a better approach would be to push for the overall budget to be reduced by 10% per year _every-year_, helping the RIR focus on what it's there for, and all the extraneous items that we fund as RIPE members can start to die off ? +1 in principle. Exact percentage should be assessed empirically. regards sebastian ---- 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. ############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb at talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ############################################################################## From gert at space.net Wed Jul 11 20:30:39 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:30:39 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> <1341922412.31401.31.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <4FFC264F.2010704@openminds.be> <018901cd5e9e$7027e980$5077bc80$@golding@othellotech.net> <82B033F4-CC72-4094-95B4-186B01D55B63@rh-tec.de> Message-ID: <20120711183039.GL38127@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:40:08PM +0000, Mark Jones (MK) wrote: > I suspect a lot of activities/resources will die off when the NCC stock of IPV4 addresses gets exhausted. RIPE won't be involved or will be needed to approve transfer/sales of IPV4 between LIR's. Most LIR's will have /32 of IPV6 so they won't need to talk to the LIR again unless in the unlikely event they issue a /48 or more to a customer... "More than a /48", to be specific. A single /48 per end-site is ok without asking the RIPE NCC for approval. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From mark.jones at talktalkplc.com Thu Jul 12 14:31:25 2012 From: mark.jones at talktalkplc.com (Mark Jones (MK)) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:31:25 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: <20120711183039.GL38127@Space.Net> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> <1341922412.31401.31.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <4FFC264F.2010704@openminds.be> <018901cd5e9e$7027e980$5077bc80$@golding@othellotech.net> <82B033F4-CC72-4094-95B4-186B01D55B63@rh-tec.de> <20120711183039.GL38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: I stand corrected. I suspect RIPE NCC won't get that many requests for approving an assignments more than an /48... -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: 11 July 2012 19:32 To: Mark Jones (MK) Cc: Sebastian Abt; rob.golding at othellotech.net; Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? Hi, On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:40:08PM +0000, Mark Jones (MK) wrote: > I suspect a lot of activities/resources will die off when the NCC stock of IPV4 addresses gets exhausted. RIPE won't be involved or will be needed to approve transfer/sales of IPV4 between LIR's. Most LIR's will have /32 of IPV6 so they won't need to talk to the LIR again unless in the unlikely event they issue a /48 or more to a customer... "More than a /48", to be specific. A single /48 per end-site is ok without asking the RIPE NCC for approval. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- 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. ############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb at talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ############################################################################## From Bill.lewis at kijoma.co.uk Thu Jul 12 22:37:25 2012 From: Bill.lewis at kijoma.co.uk (Bill Lewis) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:37:25 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57BA@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <4FFAF917.2090909@titley.com> <1341858688.16998.33.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <03A9160D-8511-433B-AE34-A6AC5BF3C758@nosc.ja.net> <1341922412.31401.31.camel@jacob-ubuntu> <4FFC264F.2010704@openminds.be> <018901cd5e9e$7027e980$5077bc80$@golding@othellotech.net> <82B033F4-CC72-4094-95B4-186B01D55B63@rh-tec.de> <20120711183039.GL38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: Self assessment sounds good if it means we can actually gain any resource from RIPE? , we pay the money, we ask for the resource.. They ask for current utilisation data, we tell then that we are using 2200 out of our 2048 addresses (yes we are having to rent space..) as we are an internet access provider, I.e. we don't sell/rent IP space, we use it for our end customers. But they still insist we cannot have any without providing detailed information we cannot provide as it doesn't exist. If we could self assess then we would question our contribution to RIPE given that all they have done work wise so far for us is give us an initial allocation of /21 , 2-3 years ago and we as an LIR are having to rent another LIR's IP space which is a bizarre and stupid situation. If giving up the IP6 block we currently cannot use resolves this then by all means RIPE, take it! . The vendors of our equipment do not as yet have workable/ production IP6 support in their software. what do we need to do to get a measly second /21 before it all runs out please? -- Bill Lewis Kijoma Broadband Super Fast Wireless Broadband ISP Members of the Internet Service Providers association (www.ISPA.org.uk) http://www.kijoma.net From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Tue Jul 10 12:06:41 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:06:41 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> Message-ID: <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > ..... The purpose of > publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at > the proposed new model and to give their feedback. Hello, My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation. The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple. When in 4-5 years from now the IPv4 issue will be over... think about something different. Regards, A. From gert at space.net Fri Jul 13 15:16:55 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:16:55 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <20120713131655.GX38127@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:06:41PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote: > The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple. Thanks for volunteering to pay the 50-fold LIR fee next year. See my previous mail in this thread for explanation. Gert Doering -- TrollMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From nigel at titley.com Fri Jul 13 21:40:19 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:40:19 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> On 10/07/2012 11:06, Andrea Cocito wrote: > On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: >> ..... The purpose of >> publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at >> the proposed new model and to give their feedback. > Hello, > > My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation. > > The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple. > Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model". To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this. Nigel From lir at lanto.it Sat Jul 14 00:46:05 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:46:05 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> Message-ID: <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> Il 13/07/2012 21:40, Nigel Titley ha scritto: > On 10/07/2012 11:06, Andrea Cocito wrote: >> On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: >>> ..... The purpose of >>> publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at >>> the proposed new model and to give their feedback. >> Hello, >> >> My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation. >> >> The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple. >> > Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an > "n euros per address model". > > To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses > by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This > will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will > be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't > wanted this. Where is the problem with any special tax status? If the incoming money serves to cover expenses, there should not be any profit on which to pay taxes, ot it should be very low. So, let's charge per resource usage and let's change the tax model! I still have problem to understand why very big companies, using the most of IPv4 addresses, should only pay a nominal fee!!! Regards, Tonino > Nigel > > ---- > 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 rhe at nosc.ja.net Sat Jul 14 02:03:22 2012 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 01:03:22 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> Message-ID: Hi, > If the incoming money serves to cover expenses, there should not be any > profit on which to pay taxes, ot it should be very low. Are you sure the tax is only on profits? The RIPE NCC allocates Internet number resources to its members as needed ("need" being based on community-derived policy). We pay membership fees to allow this to happen. One of those resources is running low, but isn't it a short-term view to base membership fees on that one resource? Cheers, Rob From sid at free.net Sat Jul 14 02:05:49 2012 From: sid at free.net (Dimitri I Sidelnikov) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:05:49 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> Message-ID: <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> On 14.07.2012 02:46, LIR wrote: > So, let's charge per resource usage ... AFAIK, RIPE NCC is NOT a merchant of numbering resources. It is not selling goods, but rather provides a service to community. If we were to charge "per usage", then the annual number of humanly processed tickets should be taken for qualifying LIRs. More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC. There might be LIRs with rather large address space allocated, which nevertheless send only few requests, which needed human processing. Why such LIR should pay more than a LIR sending a lot of requests/applications every day? Regards, D.Sidelnikov From info at leadertelecom.ru Sat Jul 14 10:22:20 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:22:20 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071301002615] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> References: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com><4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <1342254140.195088.422505492.202992.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear Nigel, >?This?will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will > be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't > wanted this. Yes, but if profit will be near 0, then Dutch corporation tax will be?20% * 0 euro = 0 euro. Lets see RIPE Budget for 2011 year. Profit?1 023 kEUR. Corporate tax: 25% (while profit >200kEUR). It is?256 kEUR. Total income:?18 550 kEUR. So real corporate tax is only 1,38% from our Income.? The main Value which get any LIR from RIPE are IP adresses. So price must be depend from count of IPs. Most of members pay too high price in case when RIPE has non profit status. May be make sense to develop second budget and charging scheme?in case when RIPE will be switch status from non profit to profit Organisation? --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 13.07.2012 23:41 - Nigel Titley ???????(?): On 10/07/2012 11:06, Andrea Cocito wrote: > On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: >> ..... The purpose of >> publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at >> the proposed new model and to give their feedback. > Hello, > > My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation. > > The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple. > Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model". To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this. Nigel ---- 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: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lir at lanto.it Sat Jul 14 14:23:12 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:23:12 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> Message-ID: <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have. If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. Regards, Tonino Il 14/07/2012 02:05, Dimitri I Sidelnikov ha scritto: > On 14.07.2012 02:46, LIR wrote: >> So, let's charge per resource usage ... > AFAIK, RIPE NCC is NOT a merchant of numbering resources. It is not > selling goods, but rather provides a service to community. If we were to > charge "per usage", then the annual number of humanly processed tickets > should be taken for qualifying LIRs. > > More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and > more load on RIPE NCC. There might be LIRs with rather large address > space allocated, which nevertheless send only few requests, which needed > human processing. > Why such LIR should pay more than a LIR sending a lot of > requests/applications every day? > > > Regards, > D.Sidelnikov > > > > ---- > 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 lir at lanto.it Sat Jul 14 14:26:49 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:26:49 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> Message-ID: <50016589.1040202@lanto.it> Il 14/07/2012 02:03, Rob Evans ha scritto: > Hi, > >> If the incoming money serves to cover expenses, there should not be any >> profit on which to pay taxes, ot it should be very low. > Are you sure the tax is only on profits? And you sure it is not? Here in Italy, I pay tax on profit, so I suppose it should happen also there. > > The RIPE NCC allocates Internet number resources to its members as needed ("need" being based on community-derived policy). We pay membership fees to allow this to happen. One of those resources is running low, but isn't it a short-term view to base membership fees on that one resource? No, because in this moment that is the valued resource, and who is using value resource should pay for it. The big rubbery is this big companies are paying peanuts since dozen of years, for these valued resourse, thank to the crazy calculation used until now. Just thinking if this case should be filed at an anti-trust commission at european level. Regards, Tonino > Cheers, > Rob > > From lir at lanto.it Sat Jul 14 14:29:40 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:29:40 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <1204487054.2808557.1342268462714.JavaMail.rim@b18.c2.bise7.blackberry> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <1204487054.2808557.1342268462714.JavaMail.rim@b18.c2.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <50016634.3030306@lanto.it> For IPv6, quantity could not be a problem, but for IPv4 the addresses are the valued resource, and as such must be paid. Regards, Tonino Il 14/07/2012 14:21, Peter Knapp ha scritto: > " More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC." > > It should do if you are correctly registering your allocations... End > > Sent using BlackBerry? from CCS Leeds Ltd > > -----Original Message----- > From: LIR > Sender: > Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:23:12 > To: > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme > Model > > When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices > you have. > > If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they > are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. > > Regards, > > Tonino > > Il 14/07/2012 02:05, Dimitri I Sidelnikov ha scritto: >> On 14.07.2012 02:46, LIR wrote: >>> So, let's charge per resource usage ... >> AFAIK, RIPE NCC is NOT a merchant of numbering resources. It is not >> selling goods, but rather provides a service to community. If we were to >> charge "per usage", then the annual number of humanly processed tickets >> should be taken for qualifying LIRs. >> >> More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and >> more load on RIPE NCC. There might be LIRs with rather large address >> space allocated, which nevertheless send only few requests, which needed >> human processing. >> Why such LIR should pay more than a LIR sending a lot of >> requests/applications every day? >> >> >> Regards, >> D.Sidelnikov >> >> >> >> ---- >> 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 Peter.Knapp at ccsleeds.co.uk Sat Jul 14 14:21:03 2012 From: Peter.Knapp at ccsleeds.co.uk (Peter Knapp) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:21:03 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> Message-ID: <1204487054.2808557.1342268462714.JavaMail.rim@b18.c2.bise7.blackberry> " More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC." It should do if you are correctly registering your allocations... End Sent using BlackBerry? from CCS Leeds Ltd -----Original Message----- From: LIR Sender: Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:23:12 To: Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have. If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. Regards, Tonino Il 14/07/2012 02:05, Dimitri I Sidelnikov ha scritto: > On 14.07.2012 02:46, LIR wrote: >> So, let's charge per resource usage ... > AFAIK, RIPE NCC is NOT a merchant of numbering resources. It is not > selling goods, but rather provides a service to community. If we were to > charge "per usage", then the annual number of humanly processed tickets > should be taken for qualifying LIRs. > > More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and > more load on RIPE NCC. There might be LIRs with rather large address > space allocated, which nevertheless send only few requests, which needed > human processing. > Why such LIR should pay more than a LIR sending a lot of > requests/applications every day? > > > Regards, > D.Sidelnikov > > > > ---- > 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 andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Sat Jul 14 14:32:27 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:32:27 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> Message-ID: <290A325D-4EB3-49B4-AD43-ABE47792C1FD@ifom.eu> On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't > use an > "n euros per address model". > > To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP > addresses > by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This > will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we > will > be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership > hasn't > wanted this. I am sorry I was not here in the previous discussions. I understand your point, but I personally see RIPE and its role as something that goes beyond a "company", as a matter of fact RIPE is something whose policies go far beyond the Dutch laws ? and even though I do not have to propose a "technical" solution I am still convinced that the technicalities of the dutch tax system should not impact something so important (I understand that this is easy to state as a principle, but hard to apply as a matter of fact). The principle in my mind is quite simple: IPv4 is a limited resource, everyone would love to have a /8 allocated tomorrow morning, but that is simply not possible. With all limited (shared) resources in the world the only way to limit their misuse is a magic and hated word: taxes. This is what happens to use of water, to pollution, to a lot of other things: the more you use/pollute/occupy the more taxes you pay. Now I understand that it is probably impossible for legal reasons to put it in the form "pay 0.1 euro per IP", but still I think it would make sense to push toward a "the more you use the more you pay" model, and not toward "everyone pays the same" scheme. I see that this proposal goes toward the "everyone pays the same" schema. My opinion is that RIPE should go in the opposite direction. Since I represent a "medium" LIR (we have about 16K addresses allocated) the two models do not change much on our side. By the way I can say that the RIPE fee is a marginal cost in our budget (you bet a few gigabits of transit on Tier1 networks costs a couple of orders of magnitude more). So there is no personal/institutional bias on this. I would say that a model like "up to a /21 total allocation you are small and pay 1; up to a /18 you are medium and pay 8; up to a /15 you are large and pay 64; up to /12 you are fat and pay 512?" would be a fair approach, technically not different from the preexisting one and pushing toward resource saving and evolution (knock knock? time to shift to IPv6??? or want to pay 500k euros??). Really, I suppose these are known and already discussed arguments, I apologize if being the last coming here I reiterate them? but still, that's what my opinion is. Regards, A. From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sat Jul 14 15:29:45 2012 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:29:45 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Message-ID: Hi I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on. Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions. Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense). Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should go for ipv6 or not. And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year. And if everyone pays same: 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes. Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs. But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do. So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it. Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Sat Jul 14 16:02:24 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:02:24 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65BF3DC8-336E-4800-8D83-8BBEDF4B944E@ifom.eu> Sorry for quoting in line and multiple snips... On Jul 14, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Lu Heng wrote: > Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than > address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, > it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from > the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Besides the fact that I disagree on the workload model as a principle, I think that the argument is biased in any case and I give an example: our LIR exists since 2003, until now we paid about 16500 euros of fees. I count 9 "tickets" opened on our side. What is the case among the following in your opinion ? : 1 - The average processing cost of one ticket at RIPE is about 2000 euros. 2 - We are an unfortunate case 3 - The system does NOT reflect the workload created by LIRs I vote #3 and I suspect the situation is similar for most "median" LIRs. > So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you > are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. > > And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay > 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in > real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions > income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). This would make a lot of sense in my opinion, even though I disagree with the confusion between a "median" LIR and a "a LIR with a number of allocated IPv4 addresses corresponding to the mean (which is about 50k)". As the distribution is Paretian you can bet that the large majority of LIRs have far less than the "average" number of IP addresses. Does exist somewhere a table reporting for each RIPE member the allocated resources (IPv4, IPv6, ASn, Allocations, Assignments, Routes, etc) ? > However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number > is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax > changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small > LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a > year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a > year. This would still make sense, even though I am convinced that project a tax of 50% of the raw operating income is a bit exaggerated. Make it 50% of the EBIT (which should be close to zero in any case). Should even the numbers you expose be all correct (and as said I have some objection, but I might be wrong) instead of speaking of "small"/"media"/"large" out it in this way: Who holds less than about 20K-30K allocated IPs wouls pay less, who holds more would pay more, for who is in that range it would not change much. I think that the majority of LIRs would agree. Last word... all the above is just IMHO. You are completely right stating that when we do not show up at the meetings and we do not participate we are in fault by definition. Regards, A. From info at leadertelecom.ru Sat Jul 14 16:39:34 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:39:34 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071401000759] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1342276774.87004.0132917428.203067.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear Lu, > 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. > So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you > are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. Correct. But it will be better to make discounts. If someone using 2048?IP - cost for IP should be 0,5 Euro/year. For big "Customers" it can be?0.02 Eur per year. Not depending PA or PI space. In this case will be included administrative expenses of RIPE NCC for support each LIR. --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 14.07.2012 18:17 - Lu Heng ???????(?): Hi I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on. Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions. Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense). Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should go for ipv6 or not. And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year. And if everyone pays same: 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes. Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs. But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do. So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it. Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- 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: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Sat Jul 14 16:43:37 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:43:37 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> Message-ID: <20120714144337.GA63868@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 01:03:22AM +0100, Rob Evans wrote: >Are you sure the tax is only on profits? Usually, corporation tax is charged on retained profits, but IANAAccountant. > The RIPE NCC allocates Internet number resources to its members > as needed ("need" being based on community-derived policy). We > pay membership fees to allow this to happen. One of those > resources is running low, but isn't it a short-term view to base > membership fees on that one resource? Certainly is. I do wonder what the plan for the inevitable ipv6-only members is? Will membership for those be free? What I do not like about this new charging scheme is, inter alia, that it is apparently intended to be a barrier to new members. Specifically, together with the (IMO completely unjustifiable) "administration fee", a new member will have an upfront cost of ~EUR4000 before the first prefix is allocated. That is not a marginal cost for most start-up companies. rgds, Sascha Luck From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Sat Jul 14 16:37:53 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:37:53 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] "classful" charging scheme that still charges for resources Message-ID: Hello all, after all the discussions I cannot understand what the problem would be with a scheme like the following: a) Member LIRs are divided into 16 categories, named /5, /6, /7, .. / 20, /21 b) Your category is the smallest route that could contain the total IPv4 allocated space of your LIR c) Your fee in euro is T/2^C, where C is your category and T the total RIPENCC costs. Seems simple and fair, it is still a category based model and thus it does not change the tax status of RIPE, and in example: - Up to 2048 IP addresses you are class /21 and pay about 100 euro - Up to 4096 IP addresses you are class /20 and pay about 200 euro - Up to 8192 IP addresses you are class /19 and pay about 400 euro - Up to 16384 IP addresses you are class /18 and pay about 800 euro - Up to 32768 IP addresses you are class /17 and pay about 1600 euro - Up to 65535 IP addresses you are class /16 and pay about 3200 euro ... and so on. Some corrections improvements might be considered to take in other exhaustable resources (IPv6 address space, ASn) and even to some extent non-exhaustable ones (number of tickets per year, number of records or operations in the database). Has a schema like this ever been considered or voted upon ? Regards, A. From michal.wozniak at nordiskpolska.pl Sat Jul 14 17:02:50 2012 From: michal.wozniak at nordiskpolska.pl (=?iso-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Wo=BCniak?=) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:02:50 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] "classful" charging scheme that still charges for resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <068501cd61d1$bd8ee490$38acadb0$@nordiskpolska.pl> Hi all, I think the problem is as always, biggest companies don't want to pay their bills and they are looking for how to put all cost on smallest ones. :( I think your idea is good and fair. Kind regards Michal -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:38 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] "classful" charging scheme that still charges for resources Hello all, after all the discussions I cannot understand what the problem would be with a scheme like the following: a) Member LIRs are divided into 16 categories, named /5, /6, /7, .. / 20, /21 b) Your category is the smallest route that could contain the total IPv4 allocated space of your LIR c) Your fee in euro is T/2^C, where C is your category and T the total RIPENCC costs. Seems simple and fair, it is still a category based model and thus it does not change the tax status of RIPE, and in example: - Up to 2048 IP addresses you are class /21 and pay about 100 euro - Up to 4096 IP addresses you are class /20 and pay about 200 euro - Up to 8192 IP addresses you are class /19 and pay about 400 euro - Up to 16384 IP addresses you are class /18 and pay about 800 euro - Up to 32768 IP addresses you are class /17 and pay about 1600 euro - Up to 65535 IP addresses you are class /16 and pay about 3200 euro ... and so on. Some corrections improvements might be considered to take in other exhaustable resources (IPv6 address space, ASn) and even to some extent non-exhaustable ones (number of tickets per year, number of records or operations in the database). Has a schema like this ever been considered or voted upon ? Regards, A. ---- 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 info at leadertelecom.ru Sat Jul 14 17:18:16 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:18:16 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071401000802] "classful" charging scheme that still charges for resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1342279096.483884.685697146.203072.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> > Has a schema like this ever been considered or voted upon ? No. While in this case could of small LIRs can increase rapidly. Each LIR has for now free trainings and etc.? So price for small LIRs for each IP should be higher. For big LIRs - smaller. --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 14.07.2012 18:45 - Andrea Cocito ???????(?): Hello all, after all the discussions I cannot understand what the problem would?? be with a scheme like the following: a) Member LIRs are divided into 16 categories, named /5, /6, /7, .. / 20, /21 b) Your category is the smallest route that could contain the total?? IPv4 allocated space of your LIR c) Your fee in euro is T/2^C, where C is your category and T the total?? RIPENCC costs. Seems simple and fair, it is still a category based model and thus it?? does not change the tax status of RIPE, and in example: - Up to 2048 IP addresses you are class /21 and pay about 100 euro - Up to 4096 IP addresses you are class /20 and pay about 200 euro - Up to 8192 IP addresses you are class /19 and pay about 400 euro - Up to 16384 IP addresses you are class /18 and pay about 800 euro - Up to 32768 IP addresses you are class /17 and pay about 1600 euro - Up to 65535 IP addresses you are class /16 and pay about 3200 euro ... and so on. Some corrections improvements might be considered to take in other?? exhaustable resources (IPv6 address space, ASn) and even to some?? extent non-exhaustable ones (number of tickets per year, number of?? records or operations in the database). Has a schema like this ever been considered or voted upon ? Regards, A. ---- 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: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jon at fido.net Sun Jul 15 01:57:47 2012 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:57:47 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <65BF3DC8-336E-4800-8D83-8BBEDF4B944E@ifom.eu> References: <65BF3DC8-336E-4800-8D83-8BBEDF4B944E@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <8B240FA3-1EDA-41D7-B6C1-5E429FD7AFB2@fido.net> Most organisations we're members of (ITSPA, ISPA, etc) work on a fee based on company turnover. That way, if you're a larger entity you pay more, and a smaller entity you pay less. Whether this is fair or not I don't know, but it seems to work. It may promote more and more small LIRs if the fees are small, and the workload may increase ?. but do we want this, or do we want a pricing mechanism which will force the smaller companies who may have become an LIR to instead buy the services from a larger company who is an LIR with internal resources to deal with the majority of issues themselves ? I always thought it odd that RIPE was promoting almost anyone becoming an LIR - yes it increases their turnover and "profits" whilst also stealing the potential business from companies like ourselves who effectively became an LIR to provide services to these smaller businesses?. At the end of the day, we either all pay the same fee regardless of size (?2000 per annum?) or we have a sliding scale based on revenues (?500 for up to ?1m turnover, ?1,000 for turnover up to ?2.5m and so on ?? or we tax everyone based on the number of resources they have, so the guys with 10 x /19's pay more than those with 1 x /21 - but then that changes the taxable status of RIPE as a whole) Which takes me back to my first point ? most membership organisations simply charge a sliding scale based on turnover We all have the option to send 2 members of staff off on courses telling us how to spell DNS or how to fill in a web form / drive a web page. If we choose to use them then great, and we get some networking benefits from meeting people ? and those who don't make use of the courses either don't need to / want to or can't afford to have the staff out of the office for the time (usually because they're too small to have 50% of their staff out for 2 days) just my ?2 :) J -- Jon Morby FidoNet - the internet made simple! 10 - 16 Tiller Road, London, E14 8PX tel: 0845 004 3050 / fax: 0845 004 3051 On 14 Jul 2012, at 15:02, Andrea Cocito > wrote: Sorry for quoting in line and multiple snips... On Jul 14, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Lu Heng wrote: Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Besides the fact that I disagree on the workload model as a principle, I think that the argument is biased in any case and I give an example: our LIR exists since 2003, until now we paid about 16500 euros of fees. I count 9 "tickets" opened on our side. What is the case among the following in your opinion ? : 1 - The average processing cost of one ticket at RIPE is about 2000 euros. 2 - We are an unfortunate case 3 - The system does NOT reflect the workload created by LIRs I vote #3 and I suspect the situation is similar for most "median" LIRs. So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). This would make a lot of sense in my opinion, even though I disagree with the confusion between a "median" LIR and a "a LIR with a number of allocated IPv4 addresses corresponding to the mean (which is about 50k)". As the distribution is Paretian you can bet that the large majority of LIRs have far less than the "average" number of IP addresses. Does exist somewhere a table reporting for each RIPE member the allocated resources (IPv4, IPv6, ASn, Allocations, Assignments, Routes, etc) ? However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year. This would still make sense, even though I am convinced that project a tax of 50% of the raw operating income is a bit exaggerated. Make it 50% of the EBIT (which should be close to zero in any case). Should even the numbers you expose be all correct (and as said I have some objection, but I might be wrong) instead of speaking of "small"/"media"/"large" out it in this way: Who holds less than about 20K-30K allocated IPs wouls pay less, who holds more would pay more, for who is in that range it would not change much. I think that the majority of LIRs would agree. Last word... all the above is just IMHO. You are completely right stating that when we do not show up at the meetings and we do not participate we are in fault by definition. Regards, A. ---- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From poty at iiat.ru Sun Jul 15 13:51:44 2012 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:51:44 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model Message-ID: Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Sun Jul 15 19:20:25 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:20:25 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1342372825.457477.449924869.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear?Vladislav, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): Read and agree with all point of Report - different things. It is very useful and TF made a hudge work. I sure that many concepts from this report will be in next charging scheme.? ? 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. IPs not "good". Why not sell IPs as services?? 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". If RIPE will sale IPs as services - may be we will have the same problem. So question of moving from "non profit" to "corporate" should be very good calculated. While it will be very difficult to switch back from "corporate" to "non profit". 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. When I wrote about IP-adresses - I wrote about PI too (not only PA). For ASN we can charge some small money too.? Reverse DNS are not limited and depends from IPs. So we don't need to charge for this service additionaly. ? There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. I read. Most of ideas I find very useful. You made a huge work and I hope that togeather we can find solution.? Current pricing not stimulate companies which have too many IP resources return they back. So for now some LIRs can have /8 and pay only in 2 times more than your LIR which uses only half of allocated space.? The same problem with PI resources. End users pay for /24 the same money as for /23, /22 etc. And this is a result of current charging scheme.? When each IP will cost some money - companies which don't need this IPs will transfer it to companies which need IP addresses (I hope..).? --? Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. ? 15.07.2012 16:17 - ???????(?): Hello all, ? I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): ? 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. ? There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. ? Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz Sun Jul 15 23:05:51 2012 From: tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz (Tomas Hlavacek) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:05:51 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <1342372825.457477.449924869.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <1342372825.457477.449924869.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: Hello! I think that when you propose such a radical changes in charging scheme you have to consider possible impacts not only on the community but also on the whole IT industry in RIPE NCC service region. We all have to step back a bit and think about responsibility we have. Wrong decisions made and voted for on RIPE NCC general meeting could waste incredible amount of money, ruin lot of businesses and create a huge disadvantage for European IT industry in international competition. And I think that putting price tags on IP addresses is exactly that kind of thing which can easily become such an evil. Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and regulate our lives. RIPE NCC is (and should be) here to hand out resources and register them. It means that it is here to help us all and we are willing to pay for it. If you really want Internet to be regulated, taxed and coerced to do crazy things why don't you propose to pass responsibilities of RIPE NCC to national governments or EU. They have quite a lot of experience with making life worse for the sake of nothing. Tomas On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > > > Current pricing not stimulate companies which have too many IP resources > return they back. So for now some LIRs can have /8 and pay only in 2 times > more than your LIR which uses only half of allocated space. > > The same problem with PI resources. End users pay for /24 the same money > as for /23, /22 etc. And this is a result of current charging scheme. > > When each IP will cost some money - companies which don't need this IPs > will transfer it to companies which need IP addresses (I hope..). > > -- Tom?? Hlav??ek ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sid at free.net Mon Jul 16 02:47:17 2012 From: sid at free.net (Dimitri I Sidelnikov) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:47:17 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <1342372825.457477.449924869.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <1342372825.457477.449924869.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <50036495.5080709@free.net> On 15.07.2012 21:20, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > > IPs not "good". Why not sell IPs as services? Just because an IP number itself is NOT a service. It is an exhaustible resource. Service can't be exhaustible. But (re)allocating/(re)assigning global Internet resources is a service. Even if all resources were exhausted, the service would survive as long as the resources were used.;-) I absolutely agree with Tomas, that > RIPE NCC is (and should be) here to hand out resources and register them. and we are paying RIPE NCC for the service. Regards, D.Sidelnikov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sid at free.net Mon Jul 16 03:11:30 2012 From: sid at free.net (Dimitri I Sidelnikov) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:11:30 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> Message-ID: <50036A42.1070106@free.net> Dear Tonino, On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote: > When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices > you have. > > If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they > are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. > RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary. Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will find themselves in worse position, than they have now. Regards, D.Sidelnikov From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Jul 16 03:17:57 2012 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:17:57 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <50036A42.1070106@free.net> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Dimitri I Sidelnikov wrote: > Dear Tonino, > > On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote: >> When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices >> you have. >> >> If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they >> are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. >> > RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary. > > Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange > or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread > eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will > find themselves in worse position, than they have now. > > Regards, > D.Sidelnikov > Consider the listing service every RIR are offering...I wondering will it be true someday... resource(capital or IPs doesn't matter) always being distributed most effectively if market come into play. Bu I think this is off topic though...and we always have IPv6 at our disposal if one day everything getting too expensive to operate. > > ---- > 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. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From sven at cb3rob.net Mon Jul 16 09:46:14 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:46:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> Message-ID: why does this keep popping up... its all sooooo irrelevant for 32bit asn and ipv6.... look people, the only reason we keep ipv4 around is to connect to -your old shit- :P now get up to date and we can forget about ipv4 and 'payment per resource' etc. On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Lu Heng wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Dimitri I Sidelnikov wrote: >> Dear Tonino, >> >> On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote: >>> When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices >>> you have. >>> >>> If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they >>> are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. >>> >> RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary. >> >> Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange >> or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread >> eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will >> find themselves in worse position, than they have now. >> >> Regards, >> D.Sidelnikov >> > Consider the listing service every RIR are offering...I wondering will > it be true someday... > > resource(capital or IPs doesn't matter) always being distributed most > effectively if market come into play. > > Bu I think this is off topic though...and we always have IPv6 at our > disposal if one day everything getting too expensive to operate. >> >> ---- >> 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. > > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > > ---- > 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 h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Jul 16 09:55:43 2012 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:55:43 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> Message-ID: Hi On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > why does this keep popping up... its all sooooo irrelevant for 32bit asn and > ipv6.... look people, the only reason we keep ipv4 around is to connect to > -your old shit- :P > > now get up to date and we can forget about ipv4 and 'payment per resource' > etc. > I think go to IPv6 or not is irrelevant to this discussion. To date, IPv4 is still potential high value item. As long as it is high value and it is trade-able, people would want it to be more fair. But I take no side in the discussion, for us, both model works.(everybody pays same or big guys pay more). > > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Lu Heng wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Dimitri I Sidelnikov >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Tonino, >>> >>> On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote: >>>> >>>> When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices >>>> you have. >>>> >>>> If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they >>>> are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. >>>> >>> RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary. >>> >>> Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange >>> or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread >>> eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will >>> find themselves in worse position, than they have now. >>> >>> Regards, >>> D.Sidelnikov >>> >> Consider the listing service every RIR are offering...I wondering will >> it be true someday... >> >> resource(capital or IPs doesn't matter) always being distributed most >> effectively if market come into play. >> >> Bu I think this is off topic though...and we always have IPv6 at our >> disposal if one day everything getting too expensive to operate. >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> 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. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> >> ---- >> 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. >> > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From kpn-ip-office at kpn.com Mon Jul 16 11:54:27 2012 From: kpn-ip-office at kpn.com (kpn-ip-office at kpn.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:54:27 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <1342372825.457477.449924869.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: +1 With kind regards, ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema KPN IP-Office Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Tomas Hlavacek Verzonden: zondag 15 juli 2012 23:06 Aan: LeaderTelecom Ltd. CC: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model Hello! I think that when you propose such a radical changes in charging scheme you have to consider possible impacts not only on the community but also on the whole IT industry in RIPE NCC service region. We all have to step back a bit and think about responsibility we have. Wrong decisions made and voted for on RIPE NCC general meeting could waste incredible amount of money, ruin lot of businesses and create a huge disadvantage for European IT industry in international competition. And I think that putting price tags on IP addresses is exactly that kind of thing which can easily become such an evil. Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and regulate our lives. RIPE NCC is (and should be) here to hand out resources and register them. It means that it is here to help us all and we are willing to pay for it. If you really want Internet to be regulated, taxed and coerced to do crazy things why don't you propose to pass responsibilities of RIPE NCC to national governments or EU. They have quite a lot of experience with making life worse for the sake of nothing. Tomas On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. > wrote: Current pricing not stimulate companies which have too many IP resources return they back. So for now some LIRs can have /8 and pay only in 2 times more than your LIR which uses only half of allocated space. The same problem with PI resources. End users pay for /24 the same money as for /23, /22 etc. And this is a result of current charging scheme. When each IP will cost some money - companies which don't need this IPs will transfer it to companies which need IP addresses (I hope..). -- Tom?? Hlav??ek ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nigel at titley.com Mon Jul 16 12:02:49 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:02:49 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071301002615] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <1342254140.195088.422505492.202992.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com><4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <1342254140.195088.422505492.202992.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <5003E6C9.5010805@titley.com> On 14/07/2012 09:22, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > Dear Nigel, > > > This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE > as we will > > be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't > > wanted this. > > Yes, but if profit will be near 0, then Dutch corporation tax will > be 20% * 0 euro = 0 euro. > > Lets see RIPE Budget for 2011 year. Profit 1 023 kEUR. Corporate tax: > 25% (while profit >200kEUR). It is 256 kEUR. Total income: 18 550 > kEUR. So real corporate tax is only 1,38% from our Income. > > The main Value which get any LIR from RIPE are IP adresses. So price > must be depend from count of IPs. Most of members pay too high price > in case when RIPE has non profit status. May be make sense to develop > second budget and charging scheme in case when RIPE will be switch > status from non profit to profit Organisation? Perfectly happy to do this, but members have in the past indicated that they want to retain not-for-profit and the special tax status. Nigel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripelist at bnethungaria.hu Mon Jul 16 12:02:10 2012 From: ripelist at bnethungaria.hu (ripelist at bnethungaria.hu) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:02:10 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> Message-ID: <5003E6A2.3000608@bnethungaria.hu> 2012.07.16. 9:46 keltez?ssel, Sven Olaf Kamphuis ?rta: > now get up to date and we can forget about ipv4 and 'payment per resource' > etc. > OK, but how will this help with the RIPE funding? I thought the discussion was about that. Regards Peter Marton From info at kosmozz.be Mon Jul 16 12:04:19 2012 From: info at kosmozz.be (KOSMOZZ - Info) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:04:19 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <1342372825.457477.449924869.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: I totally agree. Kind regards, Filip Herman Network Operations Centre KOSMOZZ | Cloud Provider | Call us at +32 54 311.400 | E-mail us at info at kosmozz.be | Visit us http://www.kosmozzz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of kpn-ip-office at kpn.com Sent: maandag 16 juli 2012 11:54 To: tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz; info at leadertelecom.ru Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model +1 With kind regards, ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema KPN IP-Office Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Tomas Hlavacek Verzonden: zondag 15 juli 2012 23:06 Aan: LeaderTelecom Ltd. CC: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model Hello! I think that when you propose such a radical changes in charging scheme you have to consider possible impacts not only on the community but also on the whole IT industry in RIPE NCC service region. We all have to step back a bit and think about responsibility we have. Wrong decisions made and voted for on RIPE NCC general meeting could waste incredible amount of money, ruin lot of businesses and create a huge disadvantage for European IT industry in international competition. And I think that putting price tags on IP addresses is exactly that kind of thing which can easily become such an evil. Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and regulate our lives. RIPE NCC is (and should be) here to hand out resources and register them. It means that it is here to help us all and we are willing to pay for it. If you really want Internet to be regulated, taxed and coerced to do crazy things why don't you propose to pass responsibilities of RIPE NCC to national governments or EU. They have quite a lot of experience with making life worse for the sake of nothing. Tomas On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. > wrote: Current pricing not stimulate companies which have too many IP resources return they back. So for now some LIRs can have /8 and pay only in 2 times more than your LIR which uses only half of allocated space. The same problem with PI resources. End users pay for /24 the same money as for /23, /22 etc. And this is a result of current charging scheme. When each IP will cost some money - companies which don't need this IPs will transfer it to companies which need IP addresses (I hope..). -- Tom?? Hlav??ek ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Jul 16 12:33:48 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:33:48 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <1342372825.457477.449924869.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1342434828.895036.855766243.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear Tomas, > I think that when you propose such a radical changes in charging scheme you have to consider > possible impacts not only on the community but also on the whole IT industry in RIPE NCC service > region. We all have to step back a bit and think about responsibility we have. Wrong decisions made > and voted for on RIPE NCC general meeting could waste incredible amount of money, ruin lot of > businesses and create a huge disadvantage for European IT industry in international competition. Why you think that it will be step back?? Who and why will waste money? Big companies use more IPs and will pay more. This is very logical. They can reduce payments through?optimisation infrastructure, moving to IPv6, etc. Small palyers will pay low. Medium will pay the same money. Why you think that it will be?huge disadvantage for European IT industry? Could you tell not general words, but numbers?? The same I can say the same words about current charging scheme, while small LIRs pay too much. ? > Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and > regulate our lives. The regulation in genereal the same - Dutch law. In case if RIPE will transfrom to Corporate body - it will pay small corporate tax. In general nothing bad will happend. Could you write what do you afraid? ? --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Jul 16 14:59:15 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:59:15 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <50036A42.1070106@free.net> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> Message-ID: <20120716125915.GA76776@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 05:11:30AM +0400, Dimitri I Sidelnikov wrote: >RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary. > >Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange >or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread >eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will >find themselves in worse position, than they have now. +1 That is not where I want the RIPE NCC to go. I want the NCC to be a community resource registry and information clearinghouse, not a shop where you buy ipv4 by the /32. It's up to us, who fund the NCC and by whose consent it "governs" to make this happen in a fair and non-excluding way. rgds, Sascha Luck From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Mon Jul 16 17:37:36 2012 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:37:36 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071301002615] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5003E6C9.5010805@titley.com> References: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com><4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <1342254140.195088.422505492.202992.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <5003E6C9.5010805@titley.com> Message-ID: <50043540.3030408@heanet.ie> "Nigel Titley" wrote the following on 16/07/2012 11:02: > On 14/07/2012 09:22, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: >> Dear Nigel, >> >> > This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE >> as we will >> > be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't >> > wanted this. >> >> Yes, but if profit will be near 0, then Dutch corporation tax will >> be 20% * 0 euro = 0 euro. >> >> Lets see RIPE Budget for 2011 year. Profit 1 023 kEUR. Corporate tax: >> 25% (while profit >200kEUR). It is 256 kEUR. Total income: 18 550 >> kEUR. So real corporate tax is only 1,38% from our Income. >> >> The main Value which get any LIR from RIPE are IP adresses. So price >> must be depend from count of IPs. Most of members pay too high price >> in case when RIPE has non profit status. May be make sense to develop >> second budget and charging scheme in case when RIPE will be switch >> status from non profit to profit Organisation? > > Perfectly happy to do this, but members have in the past indicated that > they want to retain not-for-profit and the special tax status. Certainly this member does. We can discuss, at length, how we all think the Dutch government *might* interpret things, but I'm in favour of certainty (or as much certainty as possible) when it comes to very large sums of money. Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ From lir at lanto.it Mon Jul 16 22:45:35 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:45:35 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <50036A42.1070106@free.net> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> Message-ID: <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> Il 16/07/2012 03:11, Dimitri I Sidelnikov ha scritto: > Dear Tonino, > > On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote: >> When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices >> you have. >> >> If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they >> are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. >> > RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary. RIPE is managing a public resource, and usage should be fair and available to all. Who is using a lot of a resources which are rare and exausted should pay accordingly, as he/she is using a public resource and others are denied this usage because of him. So the community should have a gain from this concession. So, very simply, IPs are like water, air: a PUBLIC resource!!!!! Regards, Tonino > > Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange > or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread > eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will > find themselves in worse position, than they have now. So, for avoiding to have less resources, I should pay the same of who is using 16 times my assignments already from 16 years? I'm thinking more and more if it is the case to file a case at EU level..... Regards, Tonino > > Regards, > D.Sidelnikov > > > ---- > 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 sid at free.net Tue Jul 17 00:18:22 2012 From: sid at free.net (Dimitri I Sidelnikov) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:18:22 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> Message-ID: <5004932E.6040205@free.net> On 17.07.2012 00:45, LIR wrote: > RIPE is managing a public resource, and usage should be fair and > available to all. Absolutely! And all adopted rules and procedures, described in RIPE documents, serve to this very purpose. If one doubts the efficiency of these procedures, he/she is welcome to suggest improvements. BTW, I wouldn't be so confident that money is the universal measure of fairness. :-) > Who is using a lot of a resources which are rare and exausted should pay > accordingly, as he/she is using a public resource and others are denied > this usage because of him. So the community should have a gain from this > concession. Perhaps, these bad guys should pay not to RIPE NCC, but directly to those good guys, whom they deprived of resources? :-D > > So, for avoiding to have less resources, I should pay the same of who is > using 16 times my assignments already from 16 years? Not exactly! You would pay the same only if you place the same load on RIPE NCC as the bigger LIR. Just to illustrate that fairness is an ambiguous concept in given case, imagine an absurd situation when RIPE NCC is almost exclusively occupied by processing thousands of applications from LIRs with /21 allocations, while most part of the RIPE NCC budget consists of contributions from the other (bigger) LIRs, which place only a negligible load. Is it fair? The answer depends on the size of allocated address block, doesn't it? ;-) > I'm thinking more and more if it is the case to file a case at EU level..... Cool!8-) It would be the worst thing you could do for RIPE community. Just FYI: RIPE NCC service region is not limited by EU, there are many RIPE LIRs beyond EU. If our discussion were elevated to the level of Governments, we would get another UN, instead of RIPE. Or many regional UN, which would be even worse. Regards, D.Sidelnikov From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Tue Jul 17 00:21:00 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:21:00 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> Message-ID: <9F73B2C9-BA77-4285-9281-C17331506D4A@ifom.eu> On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:45 PM, LIR wrote: > RIPE is managing a public resource, and usage should be fair and > available to all. > > Who is using a lot of a resources which are rare and exausted should pay > accordingly, as he/she is using a public resource and others are denied > this usage because of him. So the community should have a gain from this > concession. > > So, very simply, IPs are like water, air: a PUBLIC resource!!!!! Agreed, and as said the non-profit/profit issue is a formality that has nothing to to with this: it is possible to have a membership fee that is proportional with resource usage and keep a non-profit status, as well as the opposite. I find a little bit disturbing that the two things get confused. If the question is "can we have a membership fee that substantially depends on the number of public and limited resources used while keeping the nonprofit status" is turned into a "can we sell IP addresses and keep a nonprofit status" then the answer is obvious, but that's not how things are. I do not think that reiterating the profit/nonprofit thing is a good answer, as the model I proposed that substantially makes the membership fee depend on the number of limited resources a LIR uses does not imply a profit status at all, on the contrary: it is formally IDENTICAL to what RIPE did for years?. Regards, A. From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Sat Jul 14 00:18:07 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:18:07 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> Message-ID: On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an > "n euros per address model". > > To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses > by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This > will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will > be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't > wanted this. I am sorry I was not here in the previous discussions. I understand your point, but I personally see RIPE and its role as something that goes beyond a "company", as a matter of fact RIPE is something whose policies go far beyond the Dutch laws and even though I do not have to propose a "technical" solution I am still convinced that the technicalities of the dutch tax system should not impact something so important (I understand that this is easy to state as a principle, but hard to apply as a matter of fact). The principle in my mind is quite simple: IPv4 is a limited resource, everyone would love to have a /8 allocated tomorrow morning, but that is simply not possible. With all limited (shared) resources in the world the only way to limit their misuse is a magic and hated word: taxes. This is what happens to use of water, to pollution, to a lot of other things: the more you use/pollute/occupy the more taxes you pay. Now I understand that it is probably impossible for legal reasons to put it in the form "pay 0.1 euro per IP", but still I think it would make sense to push toward a "the more you use the more you pay" model, and not toward "everyone pays the same" scheme. I see that this proposal goes toward the "everyone pays the same" schema. My opinion is that RIPE should go in the opposite direction. Since I represent a "medium" LIR (we have about 16K addresses allocated) the two models do not change much on our side. By the way I can say that the RIPE fee is a marginal cost in our budget (you bet a few gigabits of transit on Tier1 networks costs a couple of orders of magnitude more). So there is no personal/institutional bias on this. I would say that a model like "up to a /21 total allocation you are small and pay 1; up to a /18 you are medium and pay 8; up to a /15 you are large and pay 64; up to /12 you are fat and pay 512 " would be a fair approach, technically not different from the preexisting one and pushing toward resource saving and evolution (knock knock time to shift to IPv6??? or want to pay 500k euros??). Really, I suppose these are known and already discussed arguments, I apologize if being the last coming here I reiterate them but still, that's what my opinion is. Regards, A. From tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz Tue Jul 17 10:36:08 2012 From: tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz (Tomas Hlavacek) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:36:08 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> Message-ID: Hello! Well RIPE NCC is managing IP address pool because community submits to the authority RIPE NCC has. And the authority has been voluntarily transferred to the NCC by the community itself and it is executed by the community in fact. But if there is a considerable amount of people that disagree with actions taken by RIPE NCC or RIPE as whole what prevents them to pick a random resource and announce it to DFZ? This is the point where all the analogies with water or air fails. Only governments are crazy enough and have enough power to tax air for breathing and rain water. They can eventually tax IP addresses as well. But RIPE NCC can not do that. I do not understand why you want to tax IP address consumption through charging scheme. It should be two different things. Tomas On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, LIR wrote: > > > RIPE is managing a public resource, and usage should be fair and > available to all. > > Who is using a lot of a resources which are rare and exausted should pay > accordingly, as he/she is using a public resource and others are denied > this usage because of him. So the community should have a gain from this > concession. > > So, very simply, IPs are like water, air: a PUBLIC resource!!!!! > > -- Tom?? Hlav??ek ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From poty at mail.iiat.ru Sat Jul 14 22:19:39 2012 From: poty at mail.iiat.ru (poty) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:19:39 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Message-ID: Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat From sa at rh-tec.de Sun Jul 15 14:21:53 2012 From: sa at rh-tec.de (Sebastian Abt) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:21:53 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Vladidlav et al., Am 15.07.2012 um 13:51 schrieb : > Hello all, > > I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): I didn't, could you please point me to it? > > 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. I don't understand why charging on resources (e.g. IP addresses) is always linked to selling them in this discussion. RIPE is not selling IP addresses, RIPE is providing registry services. These services are charged per unit, e.g addresses. This view also invalidates the tax issues raised on the list several times. As well as the argument that taxes have to be paid on profit and RIPE should be non-profit. > 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. No conflict. > 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". See above, RIPE is not sellig addresses, RIPE is charging service fees measured in underlying unit. > 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. Yep. > 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. a) It is possible to name one of them as main. This is a community definition process. PI is just addresses, so no special case. Reverse DNS is directly related to addresses, so covered by address registration fees. b) ASN registration fees should be definex as well. > 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. Sticking to history kills innovation and evolution. "Already done this way" is not a valid argument. If someone doesn't utilize its /19 completely, we should define procedures to return unused space (and motivate it by saving registration fees). I never understood the "minimum allication size" principle anyway. Along that line, pre-RIPE space should be counted as well - or revoked. What I also don't get: why do we all implicitly agree to the amount of money RIPE requires/spents per year? This is what actually causes our fees. We should limit that and split NCC services into basic community services (e.g. registration services, root DNS) which should be covered by basic fees (flat per member or resource-depending) and professional services which should be covered by seperate fees being paid by those members that really use these services. One example: I don't get why we as a community fund R&D activity and staff of RIPE. I just want to register resources. Regrads Sebastian > > There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. > > Regards, > Vladidlav Potapov > ru.iiat > ---- > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sa at rh-tec.de Sun Jul 15 14:28:44 2012 From: sa at rh-tec.de (Sebastian Abt) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:28:44 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> Message-ID: Nigel, Am 13.07.2012 um 21:40 schrieb Nigel Titley : > On 10/07/2012 11:06, Andrea Cocito wrote: >> On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: >>> ..... The purpose of >>> publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at >>> the proposed new model and to give their feedback. >> Hello, >> >> My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation. >> >> The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple. >> > Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an > "n euros per address model". > > To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses > by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This RIPE can't sell IP addresses by definition. Yet, RIPE can charge registration fees based on resource utilization. To me, this argument seems invalid (and term "selling" introduced by purpose). Not going to re-iterating other tax-related arguments on this list. > will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will > be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't > wanted this. Could RIPE NCC please quantify what change in taxation would cause to membership fees? I doubt this to be significant. Regards Sebastian > > Nigel > > ---- > 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 tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz Tue Jul 17 11:02:38 2012 From: tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz (Tomas Hlavacek) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:02:38 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <1342434828.895036.855766243.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <1342372825.457477.449924869.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1342434828.895036.855766243.203124.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: Hello again! First I think that the idea to regulate resource consumption by taxing it or putting price tags on each and every IP address is not a matter of charging scheme but it has to eventually become an address policy first. I do not know, but it seems to me that it is same thing as 2007-01. When it comes to numbers, how many companies do you think would return some resources? And how many resources in total? Who knows... But I know one thing: If you want your "taxes" to be effective, to really make people returning resources, you have to set them really high. It has to be cheaper to purchase large CGNs (~ 100k EUR+), employ more people (~ 100k EUR) and break own network (inestimable) than paying the fee. Such fee (say ~250k EUR) for a mid-size company running MAN or few datacenters might (and should) be a huge problem. And it is of course disadvantage in comparison to other service regions that does not force LIRs to pay such a tax. Would you be happy to pay the tax while I do not need to? I do not think so. Just taking 20M EUR of RIPE NCC expenses and mapping that money to be paid to ISPs using simple formula for fixed amount per resource would not do the job. It would just annoy the largest but you are not going to get any IP addresses back. Therefore this argument is irrelevant. I personally prefer RIPE NCC to be paid for administrative work and support for the community. And because in near future there are going to be no IPv4 addresses to hand out and no IPv4 requests to evaluate I think that a reasonable way would be to have either flat fee or to have few tiers of LIRs. In that case I would base a scoring mechanism on metric of workload generated to RIPE NCC measured either by man-hours spent supporting that LIR last year or on number of allocated resource object regardless of their size or on number of changes in allocated resources last year. It can easily happen that small LIR which has messy addressing plan and sends incomplete or nonsensical requests to RIPE NCC would have to pay more than a multinational ISP. But it is fair: When they consume more services they should pay more as well. Tomas On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > > Who and why will waste money? Big companies use more IPs and will pay > more. This is very logical. They can reduce payments through optimisation > infrastructure, moving to IPv6, etc. > Small palyers will pay low. Medium will pay the same money. > > Why you think that it will be huge disadvantage for European IT industry? > > Could you tell not general words, but numbers? > > The same I can say the same words about current charging scheme, while > small LIRs pay too much. > > > Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity > equipped with rights to tax and > > regulate our lives. > > The regulation in genereal the same - Dutch law. In case if RIPE will > transfrom to Corporate body - it will pay small corporate tax. In general > nothing bad will happend. Could you write what do you afraid? > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom > -- S pozdravem, Tom?? Hlav??ek ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 Tel: +420 296 332 211 | Fax: +420 296 332 222 Tel: +420 604 111 111 | Mobil: +420 603 111 111 Web: http://www.ignum.cz | http://www.domena.cz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lir at elisa.fi Tue Jul 17 13:00:26 2012 From: lir at elisa.fi (Raymond Jetten) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:00:26 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> Message-ID: Hi everyone, (everything below is my personal view, not necessarily my companies - an extra large LIR:s - view..) Oh it has started again, moneytalks... Here is my personal view on what may be the case. A couple of small LIR:s would rather not pay at all for ip:s since they are starting companies, and have not too much money yet. (imho They forget it is not only IP:s they are paying for) Most large and extra large LIR:s have also large company customers, and sometimes even millions of private customers so they have much more ip:s gathered in say 15 - 20 years time, based on real needs, verified by the communities rules (RIPE). We all knew IPv4 would become scarse, but nobody did anything about it, except for maybe a few of us. And since the resource is running out (realy old news), new LIRs, and small lirs want to pay less so that the big LIRS could and should pay more, since the small ones can no longer benefit from IPv4 on a large scale. The fee is basically meant for the excellent service the RIPE NCC has given to its members, not only "ip handouts", also tools, meetings, coordination, and making it possible for the community to get involved. I think that a large LIR does not take that much more time of the RIPE NCC, compared to most small LIR:s who need - in the beginning- help and backup in most cases, just like we did in the beginning. All the other services of the RIPE NCC are the same for everyone, availlable to everyone. Now alloversudden, when it becomes clear (again realy old news) that v4 runs out some day, there is anger, jealousy, and bitterness, maybe even fear, since "the big old guys have many ip:s, lets make them pay for it, or they should return them..." After re-reading this myself i know the above sounds like we are not willing to pay ourselves, or are jealous ourselves if someone gets it cheaper, but no, not realy. IF large LIR:s should pay more for their ip:s, and little ones less, it should not be a dramatic change at once, neither should new lirs get it as a bargain, since they are the ones that need resources from the RIPE NCC, this is the actual cost (salary, offices, equipment) I would suggest a moderate change, little by little, over the years, not based on a per IP base. Rgds, Raymond -- ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten ??? Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Senior System Specialist Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A?? ?????????? raymond.jetten at elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE????????? http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************ From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Tue Jul 17 15:00:14 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:00:14 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu? > Hi > > I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd > like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people > understand what have been going on. > > Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument > together with two main charging suggestions. > > Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than > address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, > it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from > the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). > > Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. > > Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the > more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course > should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able > commodity, this might make sense). > > Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, > since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly > refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up > always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will > die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business > cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should > go for ipv6 or not. > > And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. > > If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: > > Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. > Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. > > 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. > > So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you > are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. > > And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay > 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in > real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions > income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). > > However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number > is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax > changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small > LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a > year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a > year. > > And if everyone pays same: > > 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year > > So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a > model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra > small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay > taxes. > > Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost > per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra > small LIRs. > > But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never > attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones > always do. > > So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make > community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least > cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other > expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no > matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't > use it, they don' have it. > > Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is > going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > > ---- > 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 jorgen at ssc.net Tue Jul 17 15:33:53 2012 From: jorgen at ssc.net (Jørgen Hovland) Date: 17 Jul 2012 13:33:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model Message-ID: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Jul 17 15:41:23 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:41:23 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> References: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> Message-ID: <20120717134123.GB81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:00:14PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes >billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros >per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN >LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the >more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Firstly, not everyone makes money from the use of resources. Non-profits, charitable organisations, and individuals with PI space exist. Secondly, it would require the NCC to *know* how much money a member makes and this information is something a non-public company would not be keen to divulge. Thirdly, I'm sure there are many large telcos who, while using large amounts of resources, are actually making a loss on paper. Will they get a free ride? >1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other >Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I >do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will >represent your company, isn't it? > >2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? A member can nominate a proxy to vote on their behalf or vote electronically (that has in the past not always been possible for all votes) as laid out in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-514 I note that http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm does not have any information regarding these possibilities, maybe the NCC could remedy this? rgds, Sascha Luck From mike.simkins at sungard.com Tue Jul 17 15:54:33 2012 From: mike.simkins at sungard.com (Mike Simkins) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:54:33 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> Message-ID: <50076f6c98d6848c4ebcd872b2db6489@mail.gmail.com> Why should a large company with many employees and/or high revenue pay more than a small company if they both eat up the same amount of resources at RIPE NCC ? They don?t, the basis on if you are a small or large LIR is based on the number of resources you hold, not the physical size / revenue of your company If both small and large LIRs get a /32 IPv6 block they will "never" need anything more as it is sufficient for ~4,29 billion customers. Under the current rules where you resell to companies, and each of those companies uses a /48, then that is only 65 000 Customers (assuming you keep some for your own infrastructure), but if you are using a dynamic pool (even a single /48 can server 65,536 customers with a single /64). There are already some LIRS who have larger than a /32 of IPv6 space. With todays general /32 prefixallocation policy, all LIRs would in simplified terms end up being the same LIR size. If you want to pay less than a big LIR, you simply can't. Perhaps this is good as we would stop having discussions about who should pay what and just divide the bill by the amount of members. If you must discuss something, discuss what RIPE NCC projects that should cut or receive funding instead. I'm sure there are plenty. I?m sure there are too? Mike. Cheers, At 13:00 17/07/2012 (UTC), Paolo Di Francesco wrote: I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made >From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu? > Hi > > I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd > like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people > understand what have been going on. > > Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument > together with two main charging suggestions. > > Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than > address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, > it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from > the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). > > Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. > > Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the > more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course > should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able > commodity, this might make sense). > > Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, > since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly > refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up > always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will > die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business > cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should > go for ipv6 or not. > > And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. > > If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: > > Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. > Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. > > 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. > > So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you > are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. > > And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay > 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in > real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions > income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). > > However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number > is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax > changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small > LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a > year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a > year. > > And if everyone pays same: > > 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year > > So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a > model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra > small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay > taxes. > > Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost > per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra > small LIRs. > > But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never > attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones > always do. > > So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make > community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least > cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other > expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no > matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't > use it, they don' have it. > > Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is > going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > > ---- > 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 ---- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Tue Jul 17 15:55:44 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:55:44 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701001001] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> Message-ID: <1342533344.979615.533844696.203455.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear?Tomas, > I do not understand why you want to tax IP address consumption through charging scheme. It should be two different things. They depend on each other. If we change charging scheme and payment will depend from count of IPs ?then RIPE can't be non profit organisation.? On the other hand, I can't understund why RIPE charges per PI/AS right now? In my opinion this is risky way for non profit organisation too.? --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 17.07.2012 12:38 - Tomas Hlavacek ???????(?): Hello! ? Well RIPE NCC is managing IP address pool because community submits to the authority RIPE NCC has. And the authority has been voluntarily transferred to the NCC by the community itself and it is executed by the community in fact. But if there is a considerable amount of people that disagree with actions taken by RIPE NCC or RIPE as whole what prevents them to pick a random resource and announce it to DFZ? ? This is the point where all the analogies with water or air fails. Only governments are crazy enough and have enough power to tax air for breathing and rain water. They can eventually tax IP addresses as well. But RIPE NCC can not do that. ? I do not understand why you want to tax IP address consumption through charging scheme. It should be two different things. ? Tomas On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, LIR <[1]lir at lanto.it> wrote: ? RIPE is managing a public resource, and usage should be fair and available to all. Who is using a lot of a resources which are rare and exausted should pay accordingly, as he/she is using a public resource and others are denied this usage because of him. So the community should have a gain from this concession. So, very simply, IPs are like water, air: a PUBLIC resource!!!!! ? -- Tom?? Hlav??ek ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 [1] mailto:lir at lanto.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Tue Jul 17 16:07:01 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:07:01 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701001001] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <1342533344.979615.533844696.203455.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> <1342533344.979615.533844696.203455.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <50057185.6050302@level7.it> Dear All > Dear Tomas, > > > I do not understand why you want to tax IP address consumption > through charging scheme. It should be two different things. > > They depend on each other. If we change charging scheme and payment will > depend from count of IPs then RIPE can't be non profit organisation. > > On the other hand, I can't understund why RIPE charges per PI/AS right > now? In my opinion this is risky way for non profit organisation too. > I never said that we should "tax" IPs only that it is a parameter to LIR size, together with other parameters. The point is that, I am still wondering why big LIR are paying such a low amount of money (in percentage compared to revenues) Regards > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > > 17.07.2012 12:38 - Tomas Hlavacek ???????(?): > Hello! > Well RIPE NCC is managing IP address pool because community submits to > the authority RIPE NCC has. And the authority has been voluntarily > transferred to the NCC by the community itself and it is executed by the > community in fact. But if there is a considerable amount of people that > disagree with actions taken by RIPE NCC or RIPE as whole what prevents > them to pick a random resource and announce it to DFZ? > This is the point where all the analogies with water or air fails. Only > governments are crazy enough and have enough power to tax air for > breathing and rain water. They can eventually tax IP addresses as well. > But RIPE NCC can not do that. > I do not understand why you want to tax IP address consumption through > charging scheme. It should be two different things. > Tomas > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, LIR > wrote: > RIPE is managing a public resource, and usage should be fair and > available to all. > > Who is using a lot of a resources which are rare and exausted should pay > accordingly, as he/she is using a public resource and others are denied > this usage because of him. So the community should have a gain from this > concession. > > So, very simply, IPs are like water, air: a PUBLIC resource!!!!! > -- > Tom?? Hlav??ek > ------------------------------------------------- > IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 > > > ---- > 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 andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Tue Jul 17 15:43:40 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:43:40 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> Message-ID: <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> On Jul 17, 2012, at 3:33 PM, J?rgen Hovland wrote: > Why should a large company with many employees and/or high revenue pay more than a small company if they both eat up the same amount of resources at RIPE NCC ? I really can't understand this "amount of resources" in term of "amount of work done by RIPE NCC". RIPE NCC needs to do a lot of work to screen, monitor and limit IPv4 resources usage because large players wasted these resources or a keeping them allocated. Otherwise please allocate to my LIR that last /8, that is going to take very little time and effort, just the time to ad one entry into the database and it's done: thus I don't expect that we have to pay more than who just asked for a /24, right? After all I am supporting optimization of work at RIPE.... with only one ticked the whole IPv4 handling and the address space exhaustion issue is solved :) A. From nick at netability.ie Tue Jul 17 16:09:38 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:09:38 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701001001] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <1342533344.979615.533844696.203455.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <5000A52D.1000903@lanto.it> <5000B7DD.6090906@free.net> <500164B0.7060008@lanto.it> <50036A42.1070106@free.net> <50047D6F.6030605@lanto.it> <1342533344.979615.533844696.203455.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <50057222.3040601@netability.ie> On 17/07/2012 14:55, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > On the other hand, I can't understund why RIPE charges per PI/AS right now? the RIPE NCC charges for each direct number resource assignment (regardless of size) for two reasons: 1. because this is a highly effective means of garbage collection. I.e. if someone isn't interested enough in paying for the number (PI / ASN), it will be reclaimed and moved back into the free pool for re-use and 2. because it cost a lot of money to implement 2007-01 and there needed to be some mechanism for recouping at least some of this money. This charge was introduced subsequent to proposal 2007-01; before that, there was no effective means of reclaiming unused resources, and this led to a situation where there was a large number of assignments where the assignee was no longer interested in maintaining the assignment, or where the assignee no longer existed. PA resource leakage also occurs but because each allocation is linked to a LIR, PA resource leakage already has an effective garbage collection mechanism, particularly now that ipv4 is beginning to become scarce. Nick From gert at space.net Tue Jul 17 16:13:06 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:13:06 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:43:40PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote: > RIPE NCC needs to do a lot of work to screen, monitor and limit IPv4 resources usage because large players wasted these resources or a keeping them allocated. All of this will be irrelevant soon. So can we focus on a model that's not related to IPv4 usage, please? We're discussing the charging scheme for 2014 and onwards, where IPv4 allocation is not something the RIPE NCC will be doing any longer. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From MEttema at alkmaar.nl Tue Jul 17 16:17:03 2012 From: MEttema at alkmaar.nl (Michiel Ettema) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:17:03 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> References: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> Message-ID: In my opinion company size and how much money they earn is not an option to use for calculating membership fees. There are plenty companies that are a LIR but who's primary business is not to be an ISP and whos income from ISP services is pretty much negligable when compared to the other revenues. For a few random examples see Premier Foods Ltd, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Jouve, Producmedia S.L.U. and us. And being a governmental body we don't make any money at all, so we shouldn't pay anything right ? Also the size of a company says nothing about the use of RIPE NCC services or IP resources. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Paolo Di Francesco Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 15:00 Aan: Lu Heng CC: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu? > Hi > > I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd > like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people > understand what have been going on. > > Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument > together with two main charging suggestions. > > Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than > address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, > it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from > the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). > > Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. > > Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the > more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course > should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able > commodity, this might make sense). > > Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, > since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly > refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up > always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will > die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business > cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should > go for ipv6 or not. > > And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. > > If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: > > Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. > Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. > > 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. > > So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you > are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. > > And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay > 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in > real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions > income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). > > However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number > is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax > changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small > LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a > year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a > year. > > And if everyone pays same: > > 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year > > So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a > model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra > small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay > taxes. > > Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost > per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra > small LIRs. > > But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never > attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones > always do. > > So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make > community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least > cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other > expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no > matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't > use it, they don' have it. > > Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is > going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > > ---- > 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 ---- 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. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== From ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Tue Jul 17 16:18:06 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:18:06 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120717134123.GB81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> <20120717134123.GB81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <3DA6FC9A-74B4-432A-AAAA-A2A21B18B537@edisglobal.com> This. Besides i would just delegate the RIPE works then to "EDIS RIPE Limited" which has exactly that in revenue what it needs to pay the RIPE bills - What then? Might be not correct, but that would be fully legal and set us in the smallest possible revenue (and thus member category)... (And yes, i am one of these individuals which holds PI space, and no, i will never pay RIPE even a single cent for this - There is also no contract for this, ENDusers pay to their LIR and nothing else.) This discussion is nice to read (in particular on mobile, stops me from getting bored) but neither needed nor very productive.... -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william at edisglobal.com | william at edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 17.07.2012 um 15:41 schrieb Sascha Luck: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:00:14PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >> Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes >> billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros >> per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN >> LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the >> more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. > > Firstly, not everyone makes money from the use of resources. > Non-profits, charitable organisations, and individuals with PI space > exist. > Secondly, it would require the NCC to *know* how much money a member > makes and this information is something a non-public company would not > be keen to divulge. > Thirdly, I'm sure there are many large telcos who, while using large > amounts of resources, are actually making a loss on paper. Will they get > a free ride? > >> 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other >> Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I >> do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will >> represent your company, isn't it? >> >> 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? > > A member can nominate a proxy to vote on their behalf or vote > electronically (that has in the past not always been possible for all > votes) as laid out in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-514 > > I note that http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm does not have any > information regarding these possibilities, maybe the NCC could remedy > this? > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > ---- > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Tue Jul 17 16:26:17 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:26:17 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> References: <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net><500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <1342535177.502158.406539084.203668.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> > All of this will be irrelevant soon.??So can we focus on a model that's > not related to IPv4 usage, please???We're discussing the charging scheme > for 2014 and onwards, where IPv4 allocation is not something the RIPE > NCC will be doing any longer. May be then just make the same fee for all LIRs not depend on volume PA/PA/AS and etc? In this case we don't need to?canlucalate any wokload, count of resources (IPv6 is too big right now), pay any taxes. It is very simple. Payment fee for next year = BUDGET / Count of LIRs. Why not? --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. ? 17.07.2012 18:13 - Gert Doering ???????(?): Hi, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:43:40PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote: > RIPE NCC needs to do a lot of work to screen, monitor and limit IPv4 resources usage because large players wasted these resources or a keeping them allocated. All of this will be irrelevant soon.??So can we focus on a model that's not related to IPv4 usage, please???We're discussing the charging scheme for 2014 and onwards, where IPv4 allocation is not something the RIPE NCC will be doing any longer. Gert Doering ????????-- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG????????????????????????Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14??????????Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen?????????????????? HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444????????????USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- 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: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Peter.Knapp at ccsleeds.co.uk Tue Jul 17 16:43:39 2012 From: Peter.Knapp at ccsleeds.co.uk (Peter Knapp) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:43:39 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> Message-ID: <246CF18A27C957458C6AD84897F41ADF0118A3AB@SBS.ccsleedsltd.local> Michiel. I personally don't see that as any reason not to pay a nominal administrative fee much as every other PI/PA user (or sponsoring LIR on their behalf) At the end of the day these organisations have deemed a requirement for a PI/PA address space and therefore should have to pay (or encourage their sponsor to pay) the relevant maintenance fee. Much like any other utility service, there is always an underlying supply / administrative cost even if not used at all. Just as an example, we don't use piped gas in this building at all, but we pay a standing charge for the pipework and meter. We could have it taken out and then we wouldn't. These organisations could use address space from their ISP's and then they wouldn't need / pay for the PI/PA ranges... /end Peter Knapp ?? T: 0113 294 66 99 F: 0113 273 00 58 E: peter.knapp at ccsleeds.co.uk W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk ? -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Ettema Sent: 17 July 2012 15:17 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Cc: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In my opinion company size and how much money they earn is not an option to use for calculating membership fees. There are plenty companies that are a LIR but who's primary business is not to be an ISP and whos income from ISP services is pretty much negligable when compared to the other revenues. For a few random examples see Premier Foods Ltd, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Jouve, Producmedia S.L.U. and us. And being a governmental body we don't make any money at all, so we shouldn't pay anything right ? Also the size of a company says nothing about the use of RIPE NCC services or IP resources. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Paolo Di Francesco Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 15:00 Aan: Lu Heng CC: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu? > Hi > > I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd > like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people > understand what have been going on. > > Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument > together with two main charging suggestions. > > Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than > address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, > it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from > the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). > > Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. > > Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the > more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course > should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able > commodity, this might make sense). > > Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, > since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly > refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up > always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will > die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business > cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should > go for ipv6 or not. > > And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. > > If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: > > Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. > Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. > > 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. > > So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you > are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. > > And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay > 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in > real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions > income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). > > However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number > is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax > changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small > LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a > year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a > year. > > And if everyone pays same: > > 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year > > So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a > model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra > small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay > taxes. > > Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost > per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra > small LIRs. > > But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never > attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones > always do. > > So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make > community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least > cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other > expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no > matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't > use it, they don' have it. > > Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is > going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > > ---- > 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 ---- 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. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== ---- 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 MEttema at alkmaar.nl Tue Jul 17 16:49:52 2012 From: MEttema at alkmaar.nl (Michiel Ettema) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:49:52 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <246CF18A27C957458C6AD84897F41ADF0118A3AB@SBS.ccsleedsltd.local> References: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> <246CF18A27C957458C6AD84897F41ADF0118A3AB@SBS.ccsleedsltd.local> Message-ID: Peter, I probably should have included the tag. We do not have any problem paying a just fee to RIPE NCC. Even splitting the bill equally among all members seems reasonable, even though we rate extra small now. I was trying to demonstrate that using profit or income of a member is not an acceptable criterium for determining membership fees. Sorry for the confusion -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Peter Knapp Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 16:44 Aan: Michiel Ettema; members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model Michiel. I personally don't see that as any reason not to pay a nominal administrative fee much as every other PI/PA user (or sponsoring LIR on their behalf) At the end of the day these organisations have deemed a requirement for a PI/PA address space and therefore should have to pay (or encourage their sponsor to pay) the relevant maintenance fee. Much like any other utility service, there is always an underlying supply / administrative cost even if not used at all. Just as an example, we don't use piped gas in this building at all, but we pay a standing charge for the pipework and meter. We could have it taken out and then we wouldn't. These organisations could use address space from their ISP's and then they wouldn't need / pay for the PI/PA ranges... /end Peter Knapp T: 0113 294 66 99 F: 0113 273 00 58 E: peter.knapp at ccsleeds.co.uk W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Ettema Sent: 17 July 2012 15:17 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Cc: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In my opinion company size and how much money they earn is not an option to use for calculating membership fees. There are plenty companies that are a LIR but who's primary business is not to be an ISP and whos income from ISP services is pretty much negligable when compared to the other revenues. For a few random examples see Premier Foods Ltd, B. Braun Melsungen AG, Jouve, Producmedia S.L.U. and us. And being a governmental body we don't make any money at all, so we shouldn't pay anything right ? Also the size of a company says nothing about the use of RIPE NCC services or IP resources. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Paolo Di Francesco Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 15:00 Aan: Lu Heng CC: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how much money is made From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European competitiveness). Now regarding the vote I have some questions: 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will represent your company, isn't it? 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? Thank you (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators side instead of dual stack, interesting hu? > Hi > > I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd > like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people > understand what have been going on. > > Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument > together with two main charging suggestions. > > Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than > address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, > it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from > the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). > > Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. > > Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the > more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course > should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able > commodity, this might make sense). > > Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, > since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly > refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up > always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will > die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business > cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should > go for ipv6 or not. > > And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. > > If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: > > Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. > Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. > > 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. > > So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you > are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. > > And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay > 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in > real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions > income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). > > However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number > is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax > changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small > LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a > year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a > year. > > And if everyone pays same: > > 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year > > So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a > model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra > small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay > taxes. > > Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost > per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra > small LIRs. > > But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never > attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones > always do. > > So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make > community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least > cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other > expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no > matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't > use it, they don' have it. > > Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is > going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > > ---- > 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 ---- 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. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== ---- 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. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Tue Jul 17 17:07:25 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:07:25 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> Message-ID: <50057FAD.2000108@level7.it> Hi Michiel > In my opinion company size and how much money they earn is not an option > to use for calculating membership fees. that why I am still proposing for the next 5 years to use IPv4 address space: it's a stable mean to measure TLC size of a company. I guess if your company has not a primary telco business you are not allocating millions of addresses if your primary service is not TLC, right? By the way, if you are using millions of Ipv4 and you are selling other products, I do not see any scandal to pay what (indirectly) you are using, i.e RIPE services. My company does not resell paper, but we pay for paper to be printed for our documents or the water we use. The more we use the more we pay. And I guess also no profit or not telco companies pay for paper, for water, for any resource they are using. For RIPE the model is a little different: the bigger should pay more because i) they probably consume more resouces than small LIR ii) they have the money to keep RIPE safe and running iii) asking to a big LIR to pay more money means more possiblity to have small LIRs, i.e. better competition, higher chances for good start-ups To me the lower is the barieer the more benefit we call get. I am also open to a "new comer" fee specifically for startups or new companies which will be lower for the first 2 years, and regular after the first 2 years. The only point using IPv4 address allocation is that it's a stable and easy indicator to see who is in the telco market and use resouces from RIPE (time, phone calls, computers, etc) and most probably is running a business (primary or not) bound to those resouces. Just my 2 cents > There are plenty companies that > are a LIR but who's primary business is not to be an ISP and whos income > from ISP services is pretty much negligable when compared to the other > revenues. For a few random examples see Premier Foods Ltd, B. Braun > Melsungen AG, Jouve, Producmedia S.L.U. and us. And being a governmental > body we don't make any money at all, so we shouldn't pay anything right > ? Also the size of a company says nothing about the use of RIPE NCC > services or IP resources. > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Paolo Di Francesco > Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 15:00 > Aan: Lu Heng > CC: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net > Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC > Charging Scheme Model > > I support a model that will charge accordingly to "company size" or how > much money is made > > From my point of view, it's not a matter of IPv4-vs-IPv6 allocation > war, this should be more a policy based issue and I would support that > who does not implement NOW IPv6 and present a plan to implement dual > stack in 2 years should loose the IPv4 address space (*). > > At the same time we should choose a realistic way of measuring the size > of a company: bigger will pay more (much more) than smaller. > This is because from the small-lir perspective, the percentage of money > to be "free and competitive" for a huge LIR is ridicolous compared to > what small LIRs are paying today to RIPE. > > Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes > billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros > per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN > LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the > more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. > > Regarding the number of LIRs, the point is very simple: I do not buy > directly from a bigger LIR just simply because most of them are not > efficient of they would charge me even more than RIPE. It's also a > matter of market and etic: the more you wait to have resources that the > same LIR is going to provide in hours to your customera the less > competitive you are. I do not think it would be a good idea to start a > resource suballocation and SLA policy asking to RIPE to be the judge of > every suballocation issue between LIRs. So the bigger is the number of > LIR, the better is for the WHOLE telco market (and European > competitiveness). > > Now regarding the vote I have some questions: > > 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other > Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I > do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will > represent your company, isn't it? > > 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? > > Thank you > > (*) big companies in Italy are telling us small LIRs that "there is no > device supporting IPv6 we cannot give it" or "mobile phone dop not > support IPv6" or "nobody uses it, we do not neet IPv6 we need ONLY IPv4" > > and "we will discuss about about IPv6 in a few years not now". This is > why they told us they are going to implement asap IPv4 NAT on operators > side instead of dual stack, interesting hu? > >> Hi >> >> I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd > >> like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people >> understand what have been going on. >> >> Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument >> together with two main charging suggestions. >> >> Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than >> address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, >> it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from >> the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). >> >> Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays > same. >> >> Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the >> more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course >> should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able >> commodity, this might make sense). >> >> Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, >> since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly > >> refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up >> always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will >> die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business >> cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should > >> go for ipv6 or not. >> >> And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to > which party. >> >> If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: >> >> Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. >> Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. >> >> 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. >> >> So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you >> are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. >> >> And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay >> 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in >> real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions >> income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). >> >> However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number >> is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax >> changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small >> LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a >> year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a >> year. >> >> And if everyone pays same: >> >> 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year >> >> So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a > >> model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra >> small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay >> taxes. >> >> Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost > >> per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra >> small LIRs. >> >> But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never >> attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones >> always do. >> >> So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make >> community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least > >> cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other > >> expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no >> matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't >> use it, they don' have it. >> >> Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is >> going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> >> ---- >> 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 paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Tue Jul 17 17:12:27 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:12:27 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not change in the next 5 years Maybe I am wrong but I do not see any indicator that telco companies, huge LIRs are going to release some IPv4 address space in the future so that indicator will stay untouched for the next 5 to 10 years but I am open to other "indicators" Regards > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:43:40PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote: >> RIPE NCC needs to do a lot of work to screen, monitor and limit IPv4 resources usage because large players wasted these resources or a keeping them allocated. > > All of this will be irrelevant soon. So can we focus on a model that's > not related to IPv4 usage, please? We're discussing the charging scheme > for 2014 and onwards, where IPv4 allocation is not something the RIPE > NCC will be doing any longer. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- 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 paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Tue Jul 17 17:17:20 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:17:20 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120717134123.GB81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> <20120717134123.GB81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <50058200.1090200@level7.it> >> Therefore I do not find scandalous that a bigger LIR that probably makes >> billions per year (e.g. mobile companies) should pay to RIPE 50K Euros >> per year. RIPE is not useful only to me, but to EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN >> LIR. Moreover, the more resources (e.g. IPv4, AS, etc) you allocate, the >> more you use the DB, the more you open tickets, etc. > > Firstly, not everyone makes money from the use of resources. > Non-profits, charitable organisations, and individuals with PI space > exist. I doubt that a no-profit organization allocates more that what a small LIR allocates for commercial purposes, but we can ask to big telco to pay for them too, not to start ups or small companies who are trying to grow. anyway, no-profit literally means "no profit" which does not mean "I do not pay for services" For charitable organisations, again I doubt they are "big LIR" but if they are, I would support to make it even free for them if their budget cannot support LIR rates and ask to bigger LIR to pay their quote But again: if those charitable organisations are spending money in other services I do not see why if they allocate or use RIPE services they should not pay as well as big LIR (if those organizations are BIG) > Secondly, it would require the NCC to *know* how much money a member > makes and this information is something a non-public company would not > be keen to divulge. Never asked RIPE to do that, and never proposed something like that. Any indirect way of measuring should be taken and IPv4 count is a good way to measure it. That's why the IPv4 count should give us an idea of the "size". I am not saying that we should use a "tax" approach, but simply think that the size (huge, big, medium, etc) should be calculated accordingly to this and other parameters. One question: if a LIR has a huge IPv4 allocation does it mean is has the same gross income of a company that has just one /21? Does they use the same amount of RIPE resouces (db, access, tickets, etc) ? I am talking of a simple thing: we MUST be sure that RIPE will continue to give us, LIRs, the same great service it has given us for years. It is essential for all of us, not only small or big LIRs. Now, is that a big issue for huge companies to pay 50K (or 20K) per year to make this service going? > Thirdly, I'm sure there are many large telcos who, while using large > amounts of resources, are actually making a loss on paper. Will they get > a free ride? As I said: they use RIPE services, as I do, they pay (hopefully more). If you are saying they have a loss of 1 billion per year, this is not a RIPE issue more a bad company managment issue. Just as they pay for adv on tv, I do not see why they should not pay RIPE for its services. I am simply saying that bigger means more resources which CAN be related more use of RIPE services and resouces. >> 1) can we delegate somebody to go and vote? If so we could ask to other >> Lirs or Associations of Providers to step in and do vote for N LIRs. I >> do not think that would be a problem to delegate somebody who will >> represent your company, isn't it? >> >> 2) do we have a remote mechanism to participate and vote? > > A member can nominate a proxy to vote on their behalf or vote > electronically (that has in the past not always been possible for all > votes) as laid out in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-514 > > I note that http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm does not have any > information regarding these possibilities, maybe the NCC could remedy > this? > I hope that the RIPE guys will find a solution so that we can improve RIPE participation. :) -- 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 gert at space.net Tue Jul 17 17:17:54 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:17:54 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> Message-ID: <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not > change in the next 5 years True, but that's not related to the cost of the RIPE NCC anymore, so why should it be relevant to the costs paid? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com Tue Jul 17 17:21:09 2012 From: Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com (Jamie Stallwood) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:21:09 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net><3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu><20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140405307CD3@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> I have gazed into my crystal ball and predict there will be IPv4 transfer activity, LIR merges, and NCC audits of IPv4 PA space that require NCC activity in the v4 space. And that UK Telcos will *still* be dragging their heels over IPv6 transit for LIRs such as ourselves... Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood at imerja.com -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of Gert Doering Sent: Tue 7/17/2012 16:17 To: Paolo Di Francesco Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model Hi, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not > change in the next 5 years True, but that's not related to the cost of the RIPE NCC anymore, so why should it be relevant to the costs paid? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- 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. -- 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 paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Tue Jul 17 17:27:23 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:27:23 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5005845B.8090208@level7.it> Hi Gert > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >> well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not >> change in the next 5 years > > True, but that's not related to the cost of the RIPE NCC anymore, so > why should it be relevant to the costs paid? > well because it should be relevant to the "size" of the LIR and not saying that we should NOT consider also incentives or other metrics in the same equation. the other option to not make the fee "flat rate" (which I personally do not like because it's simply a barrier) is to ask how much revenues are coming from the IP services, which is not so pratical -- 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 lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Jul 17 17:28:12 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:28:12 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <1342535177.502158.406539084.203668.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <1342535177.502158.406539084.203668.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <20120717152812.GC81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:26:17PM +0400, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: >It is very simple. Payment fee for next year = BUDGET / Count of LIRs. Which, I think, is the intention of the proposed charging scheme. "Self-assessment" and outlier categories notwithstanding. It probably is the simplest system and it is also IPv6 compatible as there should not be a huge difference in allocations per member. As Jorgen said earlier in the thread, what the community ought to do is to engage with the NCC to determine which activities are actually required and how much the community is prepared to pay for them. This is, in the medium term, the only mechanism by which the cost of RIR resources can be controlled. One thing I dislike about the CS proposal is the retention of the "sign-up fee". This effectibly doubles the cost of NCC membership for a new entrant in the first year and works as a barrier to membership. If it *really* costs the NCC EUR 2000 to sign up a new member, something is seriously wrong and the efficiency of that process must be scrutinized. rgds, Sascha Luck From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Jul 17 17:31:16 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:31:16 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120717152812.GC81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <1342535177.502158.406539084.203668.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <20120717152812.GC81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20120717153116.GD81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> >As Jorgen said earlier in the thread, what the community ought to do is >to engage with the NCC to determine which activities are actually >required and how much the community is prepared to pay for them. This >is, in the medium term, the only mechanism by which the cost of RIR >resources can be controlled. Sorry, make that "membership" instead of "community" as these are two different entities. From jogi at mur.at Tue Jul 17 17:43:54 2012 From: jogi at mur.at (Jogi =?utf-8?Q?Hofm=C3=BCller?=) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:43:54 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120717134123.GB81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <500561DE.3070407@level7.it> <20120717134123.GB81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20120717154353.GB3054@kathy> Folks, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 02:41:23PM +0100, Sascha Luck wrote: > Firstly, not everyone makes money from the use of resources. > Non-profits, charitable organisations, and individuals with PI space > exist. True. A common solution for this problem is a minimum fee. But then again, non-profits and charitable organisations also have a budget. > Secondly, it would require the NCC to *know* how much money a member > makes and this information is something a non-public company would not > be keen to divulge. Ask for tax declarations and keep the information confidential. > Thirdly, I'm sure there are many large telcos who, while using large > amounts of resources, are actually making a loss on paper. Will they get > a free ride? I would take revenue/turnover instead of profit as base for calculating a fee. Cheers, j. -- j.hofm?ller http://users.mur.at/thesix/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From zsako at iszt.hu Tue Jul 17 18:25:48 2012 From: zsako at iszt.hu (Janos Zsako) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:25:48 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120717152812.GC81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <1342535177.502158.406539084.203668.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <20120717152812.GC81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <5005920C.6080100@iszt.hu> Dear Sascha, > If it *really* costs the NCC EUR 2000 to sign up a new member, something > is seriously wrong and the efficiency of that process must be > scrutinized. Please remember that two free RIPE meeting tickets are included in this fee. Best regards, Janos From rob.golding at othellotech.net Tue Jul 17 18:55:52 2012 From: rob.golding at othellotech.net (Rob Golding) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:55:52 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5005920C.6080100@iszt.hu> References: <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <1342535177.502158.406539084.203668.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <20120717152812.GC81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> <5005920C.6080100@iszt.hu> Message-ID: <006d01cd643d$065ca550$1315eff0$@golding@othellotech.net> > Please remember that two free RIPE meeting > tickets are included in this fee. Meeting tickets or training tickets ? Either way, how many people ever use them ? Rob From erik at bais.name Tue Jul 17 19:11:05 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:11:05 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57CE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Rob, Training is a free service for all members. It is included in the yearly fee. There are 2 RIPE meeting tickets included in the setup fee. Regards, Erik Bais From alexandr.saroyan at orange-ftgroup.am Wed Jul 18 09:41:47 2012 From: alexandr.saroyan at orange-ftgroup.am (Alexandr Saroyan) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:41:47 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <006d01cd643d$065ca550$1315eff0$@golding@othellotech.net> References: <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <1342535177.502158.406539084.203668.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <20120717152812.GC81333@cilantro.c4inet.net> <5005920C.6080100@iszt.hu> <006d01cd643d$065ca550$1315eff0$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <64D23D4DB42E1C46B0655D4DF4EEA5B92589A275@Oram-EXMBOX01.ad.orangearmenia.am> Hi, Rob, I have used free 2 free tickets when I attended RIPE meeting the first time. Years ago I have been on LIR trainings many times both in Amsterdam in RIPE NCC office and in Armenia. Each time during those trainings there were a lot of people(up to 30) from different companies. Additionally on each RIPE meeting I meet people who are first time and they use the Free Tickets. So people really use them - I conclude that 2 free tickets and free LIR trainings are essential for new LIRs and even for old LIRs when they have new employees... Best Regards. /Alex -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:56 PM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model > Please remember that two free RIPE meeting > tickets are included in this fee. Meeting tickets or training tickets ? Either way, how many people ever use them ? Rob ---- 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 bernard.tuy at renater.fr Tue Jul 17 17:32:23 2012 From: bernard.tuy at renater.fr (Bernard Ph D. TUY) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:32:23 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam Message-ID: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> ====BT: Hi Nigel, To follow up the discussion started at the Ljubjana meeting about Legacy Resources registration in the RIPE DB, we (LR Holders) are asking forac an agenda slot (15-20 mn would be sufficient) to have a formal discussion on this topic based on a policy proposal we're working on. Do you think this possible ? Thanx for your acknowledgement. All the best, Bernard T. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5549 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From nigel.titley at easynet.com Tue Jul 17 17:43:57 2012 From: nigel.titley at easynet.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:43:57 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> References: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> Message-ID: In the members' meeting? I don't see why not Axel, can you make sure this finds its way into the agenda please? All the best Nigel -----Original Message----- From: Bernard Ph D. TUY [mailto:bernard.tuy at renater.fr] Sent: 17 July 2012 16:32 To: nigel at titley.com Cc: Nigel Titley; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam ====BT: Hi Nigel, To follow up the discussion started at the Ljubjana meeting about Legacy Resources registration in the RIPE DB, we (LR Holders) are asking forac an agenda slot (15-20 mn would be sufficient) to have a formal discussion on this topic based on a policy proposal we're working on. Do you think this possible ? Thanx for your acknowledgement. All the best, Bernard T. From simone.pucci at terrecablate.it Wed Jul 18 09:26:23 2012 From: simone.pucci at terrecablate.it (Pucci Simone) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:26:23 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] R: [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D57CE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <044ED536A45F1F4F94410660663D672105174A3F@tcrsintranet> Hope don't receive so many email... I can't work for read all of it !!! -- Simone Pucci Responsabile Piattaforme Informatiche simone.pucci at terrecablate.it tel. +39 0577 047481 cell. +39 346 8596756 ____________________________________________ Terrecablate sede viale toselli 9/A 53100 siena tel. 800 078 100 fax. +39 0577 047497 email info at terrecablate.it PI e CF 01169690524 www.terrecablate.it -----Messaggio originale----- Da: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Per conto di Erik Bais Inviato: marted? 17 luglio 2012 19:11 A: rob.golding at othellotech.net; members-discuss at ripe.net Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071701003134] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model Hi Rob, Training is a free service for all members. It is included in the yearly fee. There are 2 RIPE meeting tickets included in the setup fee. 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 axel.pawlik at ripe.net Wed Jul 18 13:12:32 2012 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:12:32 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> References: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> Message-ID: <50069A20.40900@ripe.net> Hello Barnard, Nigel, I assume this would be for the address policy WG? cheers, Axel On 17/07/2012 17:32, Bernard Ph D. TUY wrote: > > ====BT: Hi Nigel, > > To follow up the discussion started at the Ljubjana meeting about > Legacy Resources registration in the RIPE DB, we (LR Holders) are asking > forac an agenda slot (15-20 mn would be sufficient) to have a formal > discussion on this topic based on a policy proposal we're working on. > > Do you think this possible ? > > Thanx for your acknowledgement. > > All the best, > > Bernard T. > > > > ---- > 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 nick at netability.ie Wed Jul 18 13:32:31 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:32:31 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> Message-ID: <50069ECF.9050309@netability.ie> On 17/07/2012 12:00, Raymond Jetten wrote: > Now alloversudden, when it becomes clear (again realy old news) that v4 > runs out some day, there is anger, jealousy, and bitterness, maybe even > fear, since "the big old guys have many ip:s, lets make them pay for it, or > they should return them..." Not sure where this position comes from. From where I sit, I get the impression that members understand that running the RIPE NCC costs money and that his money needs to be collected from the membership. Other than that as far as I can tell, most people generally seem to agree with the conclusions of the Charging Scheme Task Force. Nick From kurtis at netnod.se Wed Jul 18 15:03:44 2012 From: kurtis at netnod.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:03:44 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <50069A20.40900@ripe.net> References: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> <50069A20.40900@ripe.net> Message-ID: On 18 jul 2012, at 13:12, Axel Pawlik wrote: > I assume this would be for the address policy WG? Actually, the discussion in Ljubljana was in NCC-Services... Mvh, - kurtis - Kurt Erik Lindqvist, VD kurtis at netnod.se, Direkt: +46-8-562 860 11, V?xel: +46-8-562 860 00 Franz?ngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden From lir at lanto.it Wed Jul 18 15:33:39 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:33:39 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> Il 17/07/2012 17:17, Gert Doering ha scritto: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >> well I think that IPv4 address space percentage allocation will not >> change in the next 5 years > True, but that's not related to the cost of the RIPE NCC anymore, so > why should it be relevant to the costs paid? So, is all budget of RIPE used for managing IPv6, new members and trouble tickets? Is RIPE not having servers and bandwidth to manage IPv4 services, PA, AS, routes, and so on? It would be nice to have an analytic view of the budget, and see how much is spent for seminars, how much for accounting, and how much for servers and bandwith. I see big LIR start from the point of view that public IPv4 resources are free for them, and IPv6 will be free as well. Why IPv6 resources should be free? IPv4 should cost more than IPv6, but IPv6 resources MUST be payed according to usage. So, I agree an accounting/seminars fee should be the same for all, but IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, as well as AS, PA, PI should be charged for quantity. RIPE budget spent for accounting and seminars should be payed the same from all LIRs, and the remaining part of budget should be charged over resources usage. Regards, Tonino > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster From nick at netability.ie Wed Jul 18 15:45:05 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:45:05 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net> <3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu> <20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> Message-ID: <5006BDE1.7090402@netability.ie> On 18/07/2012 14:33, LIR wrote: > It would be nice to have an analytic view of the budget, and see how > much is spent for seminars, how much for accounting, and how much for > servers and bandwith. This has dutifully been published every year since RIPE started. The latest report is RIPE-551: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-551 Nick From he at uninett.no Wed Jul 18 15:52:10 2012 From: he at uninett.no (Havard Eidnes) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:52:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> References: <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> Message-ID: <20120718.155210.318788836.he@uninett.no> > So, I agree an accounting/seminars fee should be the same for > all, but IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, as well as AS, PA, PI should > be charged for quantity. So how do you reconcile the fact that assignment policies have changed over time? Do you want to challenge assignements done in the past, by applying today's standards? Even within the RIPE NCCs lifetime, assignment policies have changed ... and legacy address space holders should via the RIPE NCC fee be "financially encouraged" (to use a euphemism) to get rid of their by today's standard large IPv4 address blocks? To hell with this "being an Internet pioneer" thing! We have a saying which translates: When the cribbage is empty, the horses bite each other... I would suggest we not mimic the horses. Regards, - H?vard From lir at lanto.it Wed Jul 18 16:08:50 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:08:50 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120718.155210.318788836.he@uninett.no> References: <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> <20120718.155210.318788836.he@uninett.no> Message-ID: <5006C372.3040803@lanto.it> Il 18/07/2012 15:52, Havard Eidnes ha scritto: >> So, I agree an accounting/seminars fee should be the same for >> all, but IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, as well as AS, PA, PI should >> be charged for quantity. > So how do you reconcile the fact that assignment policies have > changed over time? Do you want to challenge assignements done in > the past, by applying today's standards? Even within the RIPE > NCCs lifetime, assignment policies have changed ... and legacy > address space holders should via the RIPE NCC fee be "financially > encouraged" (to use a euphemism) to get rid of their by today's > standard large IPv4 address blocks? To hell with this "being an > Internet pioneer" thing! Oh! Only my contracts change price with time, I see... even ICANN asks more money for domains, and electrical power costs more, and bandwith changes prices, and salaries change... Only first RIPE members must have same price than twenty years ago! Being a pioneer, you had very low prices for twenty years, and you could build a market using almost for free public resources. Now that resources are limited rules must change. Thanks to Internet pioneers, but you should also thank the community for giving them resources at very special conditions until now! Regards, Tonino > > We have a saying which translates: When the cribbage is empty, > the horses bite each other... I would suggest we not mimic the > horses. > > Regards, > > - H?vard > From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Jul 18 16:15:18 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:15:18 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5006C372.3040803@lanto.it> References: <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> <20120718.155210.318788836.he@uninett.no> <5006C372.3040803@lanto.it> Message-ID: <20120718141518.GA84465@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 04:08:50PM +0200, LIR wrote: >Oh! Only my contracts change price with time, I see... even ICANN asks >more money for domains, and electrical power costs more, and bandwith >changes prices, and salaries change... >Only first RIPE members must have same price than twenty years ago! This isn't a market. The NCC is in a regional monopoly position and any attempt to charge "whatever the traffic will bear" on the resources it administrates would (and should) be met with a challenge via the national and EU competition authorities. That would be a can of worms that I'm not sure anyone wants to open. rgds, Sascha Luck From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Wed Jul 18 19:24:19 2012 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:24:19 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5006C372.3040803@lanto.it> References: <20120718.155210.318788836.he@uninett.no> <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> <20120718.155210.318788836.he@uninett.no> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20120718201725.050b1660@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 16:08 18/07/2012 +0200, LIR wrote: >Being a pioneer, you had very low prices for twenty years, and you could >build a market using almost for free public resources. Building a market? You might very well find that a vast majority of the legacy IP holders are mainly academic organizations that were the Internet pioneers. These are non-profit organizations, who helped and assisted local organizations start using the Internet in their respective countries. >Now that resources are limited rules must change. We are not against change. We are willing to pay our fair share. We are against unilateral decisions, without discussion. -Hank >Thanks to Internet pioneers, but you should also thank the community for >giving them resources at very special conditions until now! > >Regards, > >Tonino From rob.golding at othellotech.net Wed Jul 18 20:49:16 2012 From: rob.golding at othellotech.net (Rob Golding) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:49:16 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120718141518.GA84465@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> <20120718.155210.318788836.he@uninett.no> <5006C372.3040803@lanto.it> <20120718141518.GA84465@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <003801cd6516$083e9f20$18bbdd60$@golding@othellotech.net> >>Oh! Only my contracts change price with time, >>I see... even ICANN asks >>more money for domains The ICANN fee on domains hasn't changed in a while, perhaps you're confusing the registry fee with the ICANN fee ? >> and electrical power costs more Power in real-terms in most countries is lower now than it was 2 years ago (excluding scammy taxes for fake-products like carbon credits) >> and bandwith changes prices Has come down in price every year for at least the last 5 - if you're paying more you need to get a better negotiator >> and salaries change... Agreed. >>Only first RIPE members must have same price >>than twenty years ago! It's a NOT FOR PROFIT organisation who only really has 1 job - maintain the database of who an IP is allocated to. Discussion on pricing is good, but there seems to be a focus on switching to ip based charging which is primarily driven by people who don't have any, don't justify having any or seem to be under the misapprehension that suddenly there will be a massive return of it that they can have. Not going to happen :p V4 is dead, get with the program on v6 - it's coming up for a 20th anniversary ! Now discussions about *value* for money on our RIPE fees, that's a lot more interesting ... Rob From gert at space.net Wed Jul 18 21:15:48 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:15:48 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <50069A20.40900@ripe.net> References: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> <50069A20.40900@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20120718191548.GX38127@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Axel Pawlik wrote: > I assume this would be for the address policy WG? NCC-Services or GM, not AP. This is not about AP, but about legacy resources and (contractual and other) relationship with the NCC. Gert Doering -- AP chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From jon at fido.net Thu Jul 19 09:54:07 2012 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:54:07 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <5006C372.3040803@lanto.it> References: <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <20120717151754.GE38127@Space.Net> <5006BB33.7090409@lanto.it> <20120718.155210.318788836.he@uninett.no> <5006C372.3040803@lanto.it> Message-ID: The only resources we pay for as members are The RIPE NCC Projects such as the ?500,000 spent on the RPKI project the LIR Portal the RIPE Database RIPE Atlas RIPE Labs and so on plus staffing costs which include Support from the Hostmasters Training for members The regular RIPE meetings (organisation, travel and costs of staff) None of these are or should be "becoming limited", outside of the "natural availability" of staff based on the above projects. We don't pay for the IP addresses we have, or at least we shouldn't be as we're a member organisation and IP addresses are free ... or so I keep being told To date, the size of an organisation (and thus the charges) have been calculated on the size of the LIR .. but not calculated based on turnover of the parent organisation / group, instead calculated on the number of allocations an entity has. The main issue has been the cost of being members .. these costs have been increasing over time. With the increase in memberships it was always assumed that the cost of being a member would reduce. Instead the cost seems to increase ... part of this appears to be due to diversification of responsibilities due to the ever increasing number of projects and spend on these projects, some of the increases seem to be in the pursuit of new members ... I personally think we need to get away from taxing members on the basis of their allocations, and look at a better solution all together ... perhaps one which actually reduces the size of the RIPE NCC and the associated costs, and encourages a lot of the "small" and "extra small" members to become customers of LIRs paying the LIR for their services in a free market, rather than the NCC accepting requests from anyone and everyone. As an ISP one of our core products is being an LIR and managing customer resources, yet we're finding more and more that corporates are simply becoming an LIR themselves ... This has also (imho) contributed to the IPv4 resource shortage as a number of these LIRs have ended up with an allocation (be it a /19 a /20 or /21) when they really only needed a /24 or at worst case a /23 ... I know of 2 or 3 companies in this position certainly ... One I know of in particular has a /19 and actually uses less than a /24 .. I'm sure there are many in this position. Jon On 18 Jul 2012, at 15:08, LIR wrote: > Now that resources are limited rules must change. -- Jon Morby FidoNet - the internet made simple! 10 - 16 Tiller Road, London, E14 8PX tel: 0845 004 3050 / fax: 0845 004 3051 From bernard.tuy at renater.fr Wed Jul 18 15:05:57 2012 From: bernard.tuy at renater.fr (Bernard Ph D. TUY) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:05:57 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <50069A20.40900@ripe.net> References: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> <50069A20.40900@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5006B4B5.806@renater.fr> ====BT: Hallo Axel, Not the APwg but the GM agenda. About WGs, we've asked a slot in NCC services, as we did in Ljubljana. Thanx & cheers, +Bernard T. --- Axel Pawlik wrote: > > Hello Barnard, Nigel, > > I assume this would be for the address policy WG? > > cheers, Axel > > > On 17/07/2012 17:32, Bernard Ph D. TUY wrote: >> >> ====BT: Hi Nigel, >> >> To follow up the discussion started at the Ljubjana meeting about >> Legacy Resources registration in the RIPE DB, we (LR Holders) are asking >> forac an agenda slot (15-20 mn would be sufficient) to have a formal >> discussion on this topic based on a policy proposal we're working on. >> >> Do you think this possible ? >> >> Thanx for your acknowledgement. >> >> All the best, >> >> Bernard T. >> >> >> >> ---- >> 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. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5549 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Wed Jul 18 23:23:09 2012 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:23:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam Message-ID: <201207182123.WAA07035@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > To follow up the discussion started at the Ljubjana meeting about Legacy > Resources registration in the RIPE DB, we (LR Holders) are asking forac an > agenda slot (15-20 mn would be sufficient) to have a formal discussion > on this topic based on a policy proposal we're working on. What's the proposal? We have legacy and are happy with it just as it is. Actually I don't see why anyone needs to fiddle with v4 stuff (c.f. the pricing discussion). v4 is done, people should spend their time on v6, do somehting useful brandon From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Jul 19 13:56:10 2012 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:56:10 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <5006B4B5.806@renater.fr> References: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> <50069A20.40900@ripe.net> <5006B4B5.806@renater.fr> Message-ID: <5007F5DA.20907@ripe.net> On 18/07/2012 15:05, Bernard Ph D. TUY wrote: > > ====BT: Hallo Axel, > > Not the APwg but the GM agenda. ok Bernard, you're on. cheers, Axel From nick at netability.ie Thu Jul 19 19:34:37 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:34:37 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <201207182123.WAA07035@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201207182123.WAA07035@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <5008452D.8010403@netability.ie> On 18/07/2012 22:23, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > What's the proposal? We have legacy and are happy with it just > as it is. Actually I don't see why anyone needs to fiddle with > v4 stuff I got the impression that most legacy holders were happy because they got continued registry services at no cost to themselves. The RIPE NCC appears to have taken the position that as registry services cost money to handle, it would not be unfair to expect that they get some level of compensation from legacy holders: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space Nick From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Thu Jul 19 20:24:05 2012 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:24:05 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <5008452D.8010403@netability.ie> References: <201207182123.WAA07035@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <201207182123.WAA07035@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20120719212225.003da4c0@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 18:34 19/07/2012 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >On 18/07/2012 22:23, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > > What's the proposal? We have legacy and are happy with it just > > as it is. Actually I don't see why anyone needs to fiddle with > > v4 stuff > >I got the impression that most legacy holders were happy because they got >continued registry services at no cost to themselves. The RIPE NCC appears >to have taken the position that as registry services cost money to handle, >it would not be unfair to expect that they get some level of compensation >from legacy holders: > >http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space Almost all legacy IP holders will agree with the above statement. We are not against paying our fair share. But how about a discussion? Listen to the different sides of the debate and then make a decision, rather than make unilateral decisions. -Hank >Nick > > >---- >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 bernard.tuy at renater.fr Thu Jul 19 19:32:02 2012 From: bernard.tuy at renater.fr (Bernard Ph D. TUY) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:32:02 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <5007F5DA.20907@ripe.net> References: <50058587.9070706@renater.fr> <50069A20.40900@ripe.net> <5006B4B5.806@renater.fr> <5007F5DA.20907@ripe.net> Message-ID: <50084492.7020204@renater.fr> ====BT: Vielen Danke, Axel ! Tch??, +Bernard T. --- Axel Pawlik wrote: > On 18/07/2012 15:05, Bernard Ph D. TUY wrote: >> >> ====BT: Hallo Axel, >> >> Not the APwg but the GM agenda. > > ok Bernard, you're on. > > cheers, Axel > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5549 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Thu Jul 19 22:56:24 2012 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:56:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam Message-ID: <201207192056.VAA10105@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > I got the impression that most legacy holders were happy because they got > continued registry services at no cost to themselves. Logical, I expect legacy holders believe they don't cost anything significant extra to RIPE as all RIPE have to do is hold a DB entry and not all the expensive people admin of non legacy space. We're a LIR anyway so it makes little difference, I suspect many other legacy holders may be too, we paid already. Odd that this is the first I've heard of it, I'd expect RIPE to have told us, not the legacy liberation league. > The RIPE NCC appears > to have taken the position that as registry services cost money to handle, > it would not be unfair to expect that they get some level of compensation > from legacy holders: > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space Oi, RIPE, nooo. You can't faff around with stuff that was fine as it is and then claim people need to pay you because the faffing costs money. And my main point stands, why is effort being wasted on v4, get over it, the legacy people will need to get v6, you can charge them then brandon From nick at netability.ie Fri Jul 20 14:47:46 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:47:46 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <201207192056.VAA10105@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201207192056.VAA10105@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <50095372.5050708@netability.ie> On 19/07/2012 21:56, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > Odd that this is the first I've heard of it, I'd expect RIPE to have > told us, not the legacy liberation league. yes, it was surprising both that the RIPE NCC decided to act unilaterally and without notifying the legacy holders. Nevertheless, here we are. I look forward to seeing Bernard's policy proposal and presentations at the ncc-services wg and at the gm, because this is a problem which needs a proper fix, because it has important operational consequences. Nick From milan.husak at internethome.cz Sat Jul 21 00:14:51 2012 From: milan.husak at internethome.cz (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Milan_Hus=E1k_-_ISP?=) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:14:51 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net><3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu><20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> Message-ID: <907FC2896B434E488CA95AC54A15D39E@MilanPC> Hello. Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > Maybe I am wrong but I do not see any indicator that telco companies, > huge LIRs are going to release some IPv4 address space in the future. Can't RIPE run an IP audit of the "suspected" companies? If they use IPs efficiently... Milan Husak cz.losan From mark.jones at talktalkplc.com Mon Jul 23 14:09:21 2012 From: mark.jones at talktalkplc.com (Mark Jones (MK)) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:09:21 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <907FC2896B434E488CA95AC54A15D39E@MilanPC> References: <500569c12f5ef4c7d70070f24185.jorgen@ssc.net><3AA8EAEF-008C-4B86-9212-1E2160FDDC98@ifom.eu><20120717141306.GY38127@Space.Net> <500580DB.9040702@level7.it> <907FC2896B434E488CA95AC54A15D39E@MilanPC> Message-ID: Milan, RIPE are doing audit of companies. But I agree with Paolo that large Telco etc will be reluctant to release IPV4 space as this would be a commercial decision in some cases. Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Milan Hus?k - ISP Sent: 23 July 2012 08:37 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCCCharging Scheme Model Hello. Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > Maybe I am wrong but I do not see any indicator that telco companies, > huge LIRs are going to release some IPv4 address space in the future. Can't RIPE run an IP audit of the "suspected" companies? If they use IPs efficiently... Milan Husak cz.losan ---- 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. ############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb at talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ############################################################################## From nigel at titley.com Tue Jul 24 16:26:45 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:26:45 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion Message-ID: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board is very happy to note the detailed level of discussion the membership has engaged in regarding the proposed RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model. We are very grateful for the feedback we have received, both positive and negative. We have followed the discussions closely and will continue to do so until we have our Executive Board meeting on 2 August to formulate the Draft Charging Scheme 2013, which will be presented for members to vote on at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 26 September 2012. The proposed model is available at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/charging-scheme-model-proposal Some of the issues that have arisen during the discussion on the list are: - Concerns over the self-determination aspect of the model, such as the belief that large LIRs will declare as Small LIRs - Proposals to charge members based on resource usage - Comments that the proposed model favours large LIRs - Proposals to divide costs equally among all members - The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources - Changing RIPE NCC status from non-taxable to taxable to have more flexibility in the fee schedule Many of the issues that have risen in the discussions are also included in the Report of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Task Force, and we would advise you to read this document. It is available as a PDF at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/april-2012/supporting-documents/report-of-the-charging-scheme-task-force Regarding the issue of changing the RIPE NCC model so that it becomes subject to corporate income taxation, it is unclear how exactly this would impact RIPE NCC finances. However, it could be expensive because the RIPE NCC reserves could come under scrutiny. The Executive Board will continue to monitor the discussions on the mailing list, and we thank you for the valuable input you have given us so far. Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman of the RIPE NCC Executive Board From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Tue Jul 24 18:38:10 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:38:10 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> Message-ID: Hello Nigel, I thank you for your work and the acknowledgement of the ongoing discussion. There is one point I would like to stress, you write: > - The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR. > - Changing RIPE NCC status from non-taxable to taxable to have more > flexibility in the fee schedule Also this is not generally agreed, as I said there is no direct connection between tax status and "per usage charge" as long as the "per usage charge" is still done with a model of "class of memebership" and not as a "pay per IP". I kindly ask you to record that: - a proposal exists to maintain a "category based" charging scheme, with a larger number of categories, in which the category is determined on the "share of exhaustible resources allocated to the LIR", and at least a significant part of the membership fee is proportional to that share. Obviously the model would scale without problems to IPv6, if I have a /20 of IPv4 I am using "1/2^20" of the exhaustible resource, If I have a /48 of IPv6 I am using "1/2^48" of that exhaustible resource; for ASn and other exhaustible resources the principle could be similar, and a resonable part of the category assignment could be done on non-exhaustible resources (number of records in teh database, number of tickets, etc). I would personally be in favor of even increasing RIPE budget to use more resources to promote the transition to IPv6 (training, free services, etc). Thank you and best regards, A. From gert at space.net Tue Jul 24 19:04:55 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:04:55 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> Message-ID: <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 06:38:10PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote: > I thank you for your work and the acknowledgement of the ongoing discussion. > > There is one point I would like to stress, you write: > > > - The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources > > This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR. The "large part of the members" being... 3 voices out of several thousand? Hear, hear. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk Tue Jul 24 20:22:51 2012 From: thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk (Thomas Mangin) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:22:51 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> Message-ID: > Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an > "n euros per address model". > > To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses > by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This > will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will > be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't > wanted this. Could RIPE look change its jurisdiction ? was it ever considered ? Large organisation (and RIPE could be seen in that way) tend to move to the country providing them the best operational advantages, including taxes. Thomas From thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk Tue Jul 24 20:18:23 2012 From: thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk (Thomas Mangin) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:18:23 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 24 Jul 2012, at 18:04, Gert Doering wrote: > - The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources >> >> This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR. > > The "large part of the members" being... 3 voices out of several thousand? A minority of LIR are actively involved in RIPE's governance currently. Members tend to only awake when you tell them they will have to pay more or they can not get what they used to get for free.. To make my point : this is my first post, .. Hi everyone :) I am assuming that IPv6 will continue to take longer than we all want to become the de-facto address family of the internet. For the moment, this is still were we are. If the reality of the internet is a world where IPv4s become a financial asset, and can be used for financial gain between LIR/organisation, it would be fair (as a membership organisation is about fairness) to have a price which reflect the value of the asset owed by every members. I know LIR do not own their IP space but if they are allowed to trade/rent it, I see little difference. Not doing so would give incumbent a commercial advantage and provide them no incentive to return the IPv4 they own (which could be used by newcomers/startups) and/or migrate to IPv6. I would welcome policies which would increase the price of owning IPv4 year over year. As a side comment, I have the felling that in a per such world , I would pay more to RIPE than I pay now... so I am not asking for it to try to save some money. Thinking aloud, should RIPE propose several options every year instead of one. This would surely reduce the debate as everyone would have a chance to vote for their preferred pricing model. ( It may be a can of worm, It may not be possible - I am not familiar with RIPE's governance .... ) Thomas Mangin Exa Networks From rob.golding at othellotech.net Tue Jul 24 21:38:07 2012 From: rob.golding at othellotech.net (Rob Golding) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:38:07 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> Thomas said ... > As a side comment, I have the felling that in a per such world , I would > pay more to RIPE than I pay now... so I am not asking for it to try to > save some money. A number of the UK RIPE members I speak to, all think we overpay, and that we don't get "value for money" when (essentially) RIPE is simply there to maintain a database of something that RIPE *don't pay for* - and whilst we don't all agree with the ARIN model, I know we'd certainly pay ~1/2 of the amount we do now, and for any business, that's something worth considering ! * should some members pay more than others - probably There will always be some who will use more "ripe time" and therefore have a higher "cost" to the organisation Perhaps the "solution" to that is charge everyone the same, and offer a "rebate" off the next years fees based on the number of applications made (less is better) number of support tickets raised (less is better) and number of non-essential projects supported (less is better) * should fees be based on numbers of ip addresses - absolutely not Number of assignments - yes, makes some sense, more PA, more PI, more ASN = more DB objects = (to a small degree) more cost "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back to them being a "commodity" (altering the tax status) If an organisation justified and uses a /23 and other justified and uses a /21 there is no difference in the cost to RIPE of the 2 different DB entries - in fact bigger blocks make for cheaper routing ;) * should the fees keep going up - not at all Costs should be going down as they're shared over more members, and there is less work to do, as the number of "resources" left is ever shrinking ! > Thinking aloud, should RIPE propose several options every year instead > of one. I think we need to revisit the issue regularly, but not annually - every 3 years maybe ... I do have some questions/concerns over the TF finding/decisions, particularly one that needs clarification and could be "counter productive" to us all. We all understand that IPv4 is pretty-much-gone Many of us understand IPv6 should be a solution Some of us have been dual-stacked for ~10 years and are fed up waiting on the rest of you catching up ;) TaskForce Report says ... > PI address space should be charged separately and there should be no double charging If we're going to "accelerate"the acceptance of IPv6 (which is in all of our interests) then anyone using PI IPv4 _probably_ needs some PI IPv6 If you're going to charge then for both you put an artificial barrier (doubling their cost), and they'll never want the v6 ... > There should be a differentiation in charge depending on assignment size, e.g. a /18 is charged more than a /24. Why ? What more work is there for RIPE to do ? What more "cost" therefore is there for RIPE to bear ? > There is no need to charge for ASNs. 16bit ASNs are equally in short supply, and the majority of deployed routers don't understand longer ASNs - so if there's to be no charge for ANSs, then charging obviously isn't based on scarcity ... > Regardless of how PI space and ASNs are charged, there should be no distinction between IPv6 PI and IPv4 PI Again, to reiterate, if you start charging for IPv6 PI *and* IPv4 PI, you will knock back the use of IPv6 another 10 years, in which case we may as well just scrap it entirely. Rob From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Jul 24 21:43:17 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:43:17 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120724194317.GA98530@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:23PM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote: >this is still were we are. If the reality of the internet is a world >where IPv4s become a financial asset, and can be used for financial >gain between LIR/organisation, it would be fair (as a membership This should be resisted as much as possible. If IPv4 becomes a tradeable commodity and hence a vauable asset, two things will inevitably happen: - IPv4 holders will resist ipv6 transition as it would devalue their expensive asset. - Large (read as "rich") companies will be incentivised to accumulate more IPv4 "assets" in order to create a "closed shop", the access to which they control. The "ipv4 market" may happen regardless, but per-address charging by the NCC would be perceived as lending credence to the idea of "ipv4-as-an-asset" >policies which would increase the price of owning IPv4 year over year. Prima facie, this sounds like a good idea but would yet again give an advantage to large resource holders (who can probably easily afford any levy the NCC might throw at them) while excluding startups and small enterprises. (Possible workaround: disproportionally massive fees for large allocations) As a general aside, the Community and the NCC should evaluate all policies and actions primarily on their consequences for ipv6 transition at this point in time. rgds, Sascha Luck From nick at netability.ie Tue Jul 24 22:20:09 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:20:09 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> On 24/07/2012 20:38, Rob Golding wrote: > If we're going to "accelerate"the acceptance of IPv6 (which is in all of our > interests) then anyone using PI IPv4 _probably_ needs some PI IPv6 > > If you're going to charge then for both you put an artificial barrier > (doubling their cost), and they'll never want the v6 ... Have you considered that one hour of engineering time would probably cost a company ~?150 - ?300, including overheads? So your argument is that a cost equivalent to 10 minutes of engineering time for a company is too much for the company to bear if they want a provider independent v6 presence on the Internet. I'd respectfully suggest that if an organisation views ?50 / annum as a serious barrier to adoption of a technology which is important to their business success, then that organisation has severe priority inversion problems. >> There should be a differentiation in charge depending on assignment size, >> e.g. a /18 is charged more than a /24. > > Why ? > > What more work is there for RIPE to do ? e.g. requests outside an assignment window. Can I suggest you read the RIPE Annual Report for 2011? It gives a breakdown of the annual expenditure for the company, including the registration services costs. >> There is no need to charge for ASNs. > > 16bit ASNs are equally in short supply, and the majority of deployed routers > don't understand longer ASNs Intermediate routers don't need to understand ASN32 because that's handled by clever translation stuff. Edge routers which use an ASN32 as the local asn do need to understand ASN32 natively, but this support has been available on all cisco ios based platforms since 2009 and all juniper platforms since 2008. If you're running software this old on your transit routers, you have bigger problems. Nick From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Tue Jul 24 23:14:36 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:14:36 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Jul 24, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Rob Golding wrote: > "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back to them being a "commodity" > (altering the tax status) This is wrong and leads to misinformation. Until last year RIPE membership had a cost depending on a class model (large, small, extra large, etc), which on its behalf depended on the number of allocated resources. Until last year (and now, so far) RIPE was classified as non-profit. These are facts. So it IS POSSIBLE to have a membership fee that depends on the number of allocated resources without changing the non-profit status, and an example has been provided. Everybody understands that RIPE cannot "sell" address space, everybody understands that RIPE can have different classes of membership which different fees, where the class of membership depends on the number of allocated resources and the fee is effectively proportional to that, all this maintaining a non-profit status. Continuing to confuse these two issues, which have nothing to do each with the other, sounds like plain misinformation: The "Tax issue" is not an issue, unless further information showing the opposite is presented. Regards, A. From rob.golding at othellotech.net Wed Jul 25 04:07:42 2012 From: rob.golding at othellotech.net (Rob Golding) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 03:07:42 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <000601cd6a0a$4699bc70$d3cd3550$@golding@othellotech.net> >> "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back >> to them being a "commodity" >> (altering the tax status) > This is wrong and leads to misinformation. > Until last year RIPE membership had a cost > depending on a class model > (large, small, extra large, etc), which on > its behalf depended on the > number of allocated resources. *number* of resources, not *size* of resources So thank you for confirming my point:p If the charging switches to per-IP then they become "product" or "stock" or "items" or similar, and have a value, and that WILL change the tax-status of RIPE - which at current levels, will mean 25% tax which *WILL* have to be taken from members in fees So, hands up who wants a 25% price hike ? Rob From rob.golding at othellotech.net Wed Jul 25 05:05:01 2012 From: rob.golding at othellotech.net (Rob Golding) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 04:05:01 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> Message-ID: <001c01cd6a12$47e44430$d7accc90$@golding@othellotech.net> >> If we're going to "accelerate"the acceptance >> of IPv6 (which is in all of our >> interests) then anyone using PI IPv4 >> _probably_ needs some PI IPv6 >> >> If you're going to charge then for both you >> put an artificial barrier >> (doubling their cost), and they'll never >> want the v6 ... > > Have you considered that one hour of > engineering time would probably > cost a company ~?150 - ?300, including > overheads? Regarding IPv6 ... End users don?t know what it is, don?t appear to want it, from take up certainly don?t seem to need it, and basically don?t care about it - they just want their pr0n to turn up quickly. > So your argument is that a cost > equivalent to 10 minutes of engineering > time for a company is too much for > the company to bear if they want a provider > independent v6 presence on the > Internet. No, I'm saying they don?t want ipv6 at all as they see no requirement for it, then you add making them pay for it in addition to their ipv4 will get you the response (from experience) "no thanks, no-one uses that" >> e.g. a /18 is charged more than a /24. >> Why ? >> What more work is there for RIPE to do ? > e.g. requests outside an assignment window. If my window is a /16 then the /18 is less work, than when your window is /26 and you request a /24 :p > Can I suggest you read the RIPE Annual Report > for 2011? Been there, done that, have my own opinions on the expenditure ... > local asn do need to understand ASN32 > natively, but this support has been > available on all cisco ios based platforms > since 2009 and all juniper > platforms since 2008. > If you're running software this old on your > transit > routers, you have bigger problems. You missed the point where I explained that we did all this 10 years ago ! 89% of the worlds desktops are running an OS which does things wrong with IPv6 DNS results when it gets a v6 result from DNS lookups and doesn?t have any v6 routes, so putting a site/service/system on ipv6 only cuts your potential audience by 9/10ths Deliberately putting people off of IPv6 by telling them they'll need expensive tech time (as you say) plus more contributions to ripe fees is not going to help takeup - my experience, YMMV Rob From info at leadertelecom.ru Wed Jul 25 08:50:26 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:50:26 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002649] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <20120724194317.GA98530@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20120724194317.GA98530@cilantro.c4inet.net><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1343199026.320476.72004583.205258.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> > - Large (read as "rich") companies will be incentivised to accumulate > ? more IPv4 "assets" in order to create a "closed shop", the access > ? to which they control. It doesn't make sense. If cost of IPv4 will grow - this will stimulate ISP to switch to IPv6 faster.? --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hostmaster at freethought-internet.co.uk Wed Jul 25 09:22:52 2012 From: hostmaster at freethought-internet.co.uk (hostmaster at freethought-internet.co.uk) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:22:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <000601cd6a0a$4699bc70$d3cd3550$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <3169307.909.1343200971611.JavaMail.Administrator@TMA01> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Golding" > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July, 2012 3:07:42 AM > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion > > >> "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back > >> to them being a "commodity" > >> (altering the tax status) > > This is wrong and leads to misinformation. > > Until last year RIPE membership had a cost > > depending on a class model > > (large, small, extra large, etc), which on > > its behalf depended on the > > number of allocated resources. > > *number* of resources, not *size* of resources > > So thank you for confirming my point:p > > If the charging switches to per-IP then they become "product" or > "stock" or > "items" or similar, and have a value, and that WILL change the > tax-status of > RIPE - which at current levels, will mean 25% tax which *WILL* have > to be > taken from members in fees > > So, hands up who wants a 25% price hike ? > > Rob > No, there are five different billing categories for ranges of scores and each billing category has a price associated with it. The scores are calculated from a formula which includes the time of allocation relative to 1992 and the size of the allocation from a /19 to a /22 in IPv4 or a /30 to a /33 in IPv6. The scoring units increase with the number of IP addresses in an allocation, so someone with a /20 allocated in 2012 has a score double that of someone with a /21 allocated in 2012 (40 and 20 respectively). There is a clear emphasis on the size of resources allocated. Edward Dore Freethought Internet From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Wed Jul 25 09:29:20 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:29:20 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <3169307.909.1343200971611.JavaMail.Administrator@TMA01> References: <3169307.909.1343200971611.JavaMail.Administrator@TMA01> Message-ID: <9083933B-D134-49F6-8039-E32690008DE0@ifom.eu> On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:22 AM, hostmaster at freethought-internet.co.uk wrote: > The scoring units increase with the number of IP addresses in an allocation, so someone with a /20 allocated in 2012 has a score double that of someone with a /21 allocated in 2012 (40 and 20 respectively). There is a clear emphasis on the size of resources allocated. Hard to confront facts with misinformation :) Facts remain: - The charging scheme has always been based on resource usage without affecting the non-profit status - A lot of people thinks that the way to go should be to base it MORE on the resource usage - The current proposal goes in the opposite direction, will make small LIRs pay more and large LIRs pay even less - The tax thing is misinformation and is being used as an excuse. Is there a way in RIPE rules so that a group of LIRs can prepare a different proposal and ask for it to be voted upon ? Regards, A. From erik at bais.name Wed Jul 25 09:51:18 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:51:18 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002649] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <1343199026.320476.72004583.205258.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <20120724194317.GA98530@cilantro.c4inet.net> <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <1343199026.320476.72004583.205258.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <654E0BFE-8B7E-4C9D-80E2-87A5EEF95921@bais.name> Hi Alexey, I don't agree with your rational. Who are the ones with the largest (unused) supply of IP's .. The larger telco's. This will drive the cost for smaller LIR's, who don't have any already .. They don't care enough untill there is nothing left. That is when they will change to v6 or when their customers start complaining that they are on an intranet without ipv6, instead of the Internet. Regards, Erik Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 25 jul. 2012 om 08:50 heeft LeaderTelecom Ltd. het volgende geschreven: > > - Large (read as "rich") companies will be incentivised to accumulate > > more IPv4 "assets" in order to create a "closed shop", the access > > to which they control. > > It doesn't make sense. If cost of IPv4 will grow - this will stimulate ISP to switch to IPv6 faster. > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > ---- > 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 datahouse.nl Tue Jul 24 19:35:20 2012 From: erik at datahouse.nl (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:35:20 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> Message-ID: <004701cd69c2$b303e040$190ba0c0$@datahouse.nl> Hi Andrea, > > - The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources > This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR. > > - Changing RIPE NCC status from non-taxable to taxable to have more > > flexibility in the fee schedule > Also this is not generally agreed, as I said there is no direct connection between tax status and "per usage charge" as long as the "per usage charge" is still done with a model of "class of memebership" and not as a "pay per IP". This membership list isn't where the consensus is being made, it is an open discussion and the points provided by Nigel are a short summary of the various lines within the discussion. The actual voting (not consensus) is going to be done in the AGM. Be there to cast your vote or deal with it that others might vote something else. Personally, I would love to go for a none-resource based charging scheme, where we divide the required budget by the number of lirs and get over with this whole discussion (every year.) If the membership then has any issues with the provided budget, which is based on the (to-be) agreed activity plan, the 'only' discussion can be about various activities and the associated costs. It would make life for everyone a lot easier imho. Regards, Erik Bais From tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz Wed Jul 25 10:51:31 2012 From: tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz (Tomas Hlavacek) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:51:31 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi! On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Thomas Mangin < thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk> wrote: > > > I am assuming that IPv6 will continue to take longer than we all want to > become the de-facto address family of the internet. For the moment, this is > still were we are. If the reality of the internet is a world where IPv4s > become a financial asset, and can be used for financial gain between > LIR/organisation, it would be fair (as a membership organisation is about > fairness) to have a price which reflect the value of the asset owed by > every members. I know LIR do not own their IP space but if they are allowed > to trade/rent it, I see little difference. > Not doing so would give incumbent a commercial advantage and provide them > no incentive to return the IPv4 they own (which could be used by > newcomers/startups) and/or migrate to IPv6. I would welcome policies which > would increase the price of owning IPv4 year over year. I can see your point but it going back to "taxation" of IP resources. We can discuss fairness of "taxes" put on whatever resource, which is not really important here. With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really high to stimulate people to return their unused resources or even higher to force people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to return resources that are currently in use. But if this ever happened, some people might think that RIPE NCC has no right to put taxes on their resources. They can continue operating their network without submitting to RIPE NCC authority, without paying their RIPE NCC bills and without coordination and registration services provided by RIPE NCC. This can lead to split of the Internet or to dissolution of RIPE NCC and it could cause considerable operational problems. 2) There is an option to set additional fee relatively low, which is not going to have any effect on distribution of scarce resources and then it does not make sense to use this conservation/returning IPs argument in favor of this policy. Anyway RIPE NCC is a "Network Coordination Centre", so I suggest to pay them for coordination services and not for consumed resources. Tomas -- Tom?? Hlav??ek ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lir at lanto.it Wed Jul 25 11:01:29 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:01:29 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <000601cd6a0a$4699bc70$d3cd3550$@golding@othellotech.net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <000601cd6a0a$4699bc70$d3cd3550$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <500FB5E9.9070104@lanto.it> Il 25/07/2012 04:07, Rob Golding ha scritto: >>> "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back >>> to them being a "commodity" >>> (altering the tax status) >> This is wrong and leads to misinformation. >> Until last year RIPE membership had a cost >> depending on a class model >> (large, small, extra large, etc), which on >> its behalf depended on the >> number of allocated resources. > *number* of resources, not *size* of resources > > So thank you for confirming my point:p Actual calculation is based on number and size of resources, which the exception of age, where old users pay much less than new users. What should be eliminated is the NOT FAIR gift made to old users. Just eliminate the discount based on age and scale proportionally new prices to cover RIPE costs. Regards, Tonino From nick at netability.ie Wed Jul 25 11:22:37 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:22:37 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <001c01cd6a12$47e44430$d7accc90$@golding@othellotech.net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> <001c01cd6a12$47e44430$d7accc90$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <500FBADD.7090208@netability.ie> On 25/07/2012 04:05, Rob Golding wrote: > End users don?t know what it is, don?t appear to want it, from take up > certainly don?t seem to need it, and basically don?t care about it - > they just want their pr0n to turn up quickly. Certainly desktop users are most interested in just doing whatever they want to do and don't care too much about the underlying protocols. But I'm getting the impression that you're mixing up what an End User means here. If you're the sort of end-user who requires provider independent addressing, you're probably a small-medium sized content provider, or perhaps a very large large commercial customer. For customers of this form, ?50 / annum is an insignificant financial outlay. If you're the sort of end user who just wants to browse stuff on your desktop, ipv6 PI is completely irrelevant to you. Your service provider can assign you some PA space and you'll probably never even notice. Look, you clearly feel very strongly that the equivalent cost of 10 minutes of engineering time is an insurmountable obstacle for the sort of organisation which is going to need IPv6 PI address space, even though an IPv6 rollout may take anything from weeks to years to implement fully, with proportional total costs of ownership. So let's agree to disagree on this point. >> local asn do need to understand ASN32 >> natively, but this support has been >> available on all cisco ios based platforms >> since 2009 and all juniper >> platforms since 2008. >> If you're running software this old on your >> transit >> routers, you have bigger problems. > > You missed the point where I explained that we did all this 10 years ago ! Nope, didn't miss it. I've no doubt that you had servers dual-stacked 10 years ago. I've even less doubt that ipv6 was nowhere near ready for large-scale deployment 10 years ago. Dual-stacking some servers is easy. Rolling v6 services out to eyeballs, not so much. > 89% of the worlds desktops are running an OS which does things wrong > with IPv6 DNS results You may be confusing ipv6 with asn32s here? I was talking about asn32s. > when it gets a v6 result from DNS lookups and doesn?t have any v6 > routes, so putting a site/service/system on ipv6 only cuts your > potential audience by 9/10ths I suspect your understanding of global ipv6 deployment problems may be substantially different to mine. Let's just agree that this isn't really relevant to members-discuss@ and go back to discussing the charging scheme. Nick From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Wed Jul 25 11:44:20 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:44:20 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <500FBFF4.20608@level7.it> Hi to me what we should discuss is if we intend to introduce a model where some LIRs will pay more than others and how much this "delta" should be My opinion is that: 1) RIPE offers service to all of us, in a neutral and efficient way and this is a fact, I doubt that we can discuss that we ALL NEED RIPE! 2) the bigger is the LIR, i.e. the more revenues it gets in the telco market, the more it should pay. This is not so related to "resources consumption" but to a more logic and ethical issue regarding the duties that each of us should have in front of the community. I do not see why a small company or a start up should pay as much as a Telco whose revenues are billions per year. If we state that "we pay all the same" then we are not talking of a community, we are going against the basic idea of a community where each one should contribute for what you have. 3) the model is not related to "selling IP" but it should be related that the big companies should pay more than the fragile and small companies. We NEED new ideas in Europe and posing some barriers to new small companies it does not look like a good idea for Europe, especially right now. We do not have the same ecosystem that USA has, we need to improve this. And the RIPE community SHOULD help small companies to get bigger (and once bigger to contribute with an higher fee) 4) how to measure the size? we could ask to declare the total revenues coming from the telco products, then we could calculate the percentage, divide by X, then sum Y and then add bla bla bla..... It would be long and complex for RIPE and not very efficient. The solution is simple and it was working some years ago when we had extra small, small, medium etc. accordingly to some objective, clear, transparent paramenters: allocated IPv4 address space, ASs and PIs. It's already declared by each of us, it's easy to compute and to say "hey I am small/big/huge etc" 5) accordingly to 4 what I think should be better tuned is that extra-large should pay 10 to 100 times more than extra-small. Extra small should pay less than 500 Euro per year, while extra large should pay...... more. Do you think I am asking something inadeguate? ok give me the same revenues of billions per year and I would be in "your shoes" paying 50K/year and still smiling all the day long. Come into the shoes of a small company and try to find the fees for RIPE while you still are thinking how to survive till the end of the year. I still do not see what is the problem for a large company to pay 50K Euros or more for the communutiy, because we are talking of a community right? Just my 2 Eurocents Regards Paolo > Hi, > > On Jul 24, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Rob Golding wrote: >> "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back to them being a "commodity" >> (altering the tax status) > > This is wrong and leads to misinformation. > > Until last year RIPE membership had a cost depending on a class model (large, small, extra large, etc), which on its behalf depended on the number of allocated resources. Until last year (and now, so far) RIPE was classified as non-profit. These are facts. > > So it IS POSSIBLE to have a membership fee that depends on the number of allocated resources without changing the non-profit status, and an example has been provided. > > Everybody understands that RIPE cannot "sell" address space, everybody understands that RIPE can have different classes of membership which different fees, where the class of membership depends on the number of allocated resources and the fee is effectively proportional to that, all this maintaining a non-profit status. > > Continuing to confuse these two issues, which have nothing to do each with the other, sounds like plain misinformation: The "Tax issue" is not an issue, unless further information showing the opposite is presented. > > Regards, > > A. > > > > ---- > 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 president at ukraine.su Wed Jul 25 12:18:19 2012 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:18:19 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <500FC7EB.5040000@ukraine.su> 24.07.12 22:38, Rob Golding ???????(??): > If we're going to "accelerate"the acceptance of IPv6 (which is in all of our > interests) then anyone using PI IPv4 _probably_ needs some PI IPv6 Absolutely sure. The majority of our IPv4 PI customers at least asked us for IPv6 PI. But almost none of them qualify to get it. Others don't want to pay for something can't do the money income. So if RIPE/RIPE NCC really want to push IPv6 - let's do two easy things: change the qualify details for IPv6 PI and provide it free of charge for several years. From tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz Wed Jul 25 12:22:48 2012 From: tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz (Tomas Hlavacek) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:22:48 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500FBFF4.20608@level7.it> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <500FBFF4.20608@level7.it> Message-ID: Hi! On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Paolo Di Francesco < paolo.difrancesco at level7.it> wrote: > > 2) the bigger is the LIR, i.e. the more revenues it gets in the telco > market, the more it should pay. This is not so related to "resources > consumption" but to a more logic and ethical issue regarding the duties > that each of us should have in front of the community. I do not see why > a small company or a start up should pay as much as a Telco whose > revenues are billions per year. If we state that "we pay all the same" > then we are not talking of a community, we are going against the basic > idea of a community where each one should contribute for what you have. > It is communism or socialism or whatever... Anyway I do not agree that somebody is better than I am (or my company is) to pay less than I have to pay for the same services to the regional monopoly. (Please note that I work for an organization which has the RIPE NCC contribution category Small.) Tomas -- S pozdravem, Tom?? Hlav??ek ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 Tel: +420 296 332 211 | Fax: +420 296 332 222 Tel: +420 604 111 111 | Mobil: +420 603 111 111 Web: http://www.ignum.cz | http://www.domena.cz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From president at ukraine.su Wed Jul 25 12:26:38 2012 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:26:38 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> Message-ID: <500FC9DE.3080808@ukraine.su> 24.07.12 23:20, Nick Hilliard ???????(??): > I'd respectfully suggest that if an organisation views ?50 / annum as a > serious barrier to adoption of a technology which is important to their > business success, then that organisation has severe priority inversion > problems. You are right, but only if you mean the _commertial_ organisation. In transition or start-up period, educational, non-profit and amateur organisations is generating the human resource will push the transition. And yes, 50 EUR (+administrative expenses and procedures) can be a serious barrier for them. It might be a good idea to provide IPv6 PI for education organisations for free and without a lot of paperwork. At least, for several years. From president at ukraine.su Wed Jul 25 12:12:14 2012 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:12:14 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> Message-ID: <500FC67E.3000202@ukraine.su> Good idea! If they demand more taxes - we can move out to any of off-shore jurisdictions. 24.07.12 21:22, Thomas Mangin ???????(??): > Could RIPE look change its jurisdiction ? was it ever considered ? > Large organisation (and RIPE could be seen in that way) tend to move to the country providing them the best operational advantages, including taxes. From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Wed Jul 25 12:42:14 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:42:14 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <500FBFF4.20608@level7.it> Message-ID: <500FCD86.9060500@level7.it> Hi Tomas > Hi! > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Paolo Di Francesco > > wrote: > > > 2) the bigger is the LIR, i.e. the more revenues it gets in the telco > market, the more it should pay. This is not so related to "resources > consumption" but to a more logic and ethical issue regarding the duties > that each of us should have in front of the community. I do not see why > a small company or a start up should pay as much as a Telco whose > revenues are billions per year. If we state that "we pay all the same" > then we are not talking of a community, we are going against the basic > idea of a community where each one should contribute for what you have. > > > It is communism or socialism or whatever... you forgot to mention Christian :) > Anyway I do not agree that > somebody is better than I am (or my company is) to pay less than I have > to pay for the same services to the regional monopoly. > in term of "service" I do not agree that it's the same service. A small LIR does not continously request different address spaces (which now takes time to be approved by RIPE) or the number of objects allocated into the DB. > (Please note that I work for an organization which has the RIPE NCC > contribution category Small.) > Put in simple words: the lower is the fee for small and extra small the more benefits we will get as Europeans. Paying the same fee as a national operator is paying, does not sound like a good idea to me for the creation of new ideas and to keep the market as much open as we can to innovation. By the way, I would say that sounds more communist the fact that the price should be the same for each LIR. Now talking as Capitalist: the bigger is your company the more interest you have in order to keep the service up and running. Now considering that the fees are used to make RIPE survive I would say: ok let's close RIPE and let's see who is going to cray more because there is no more IPv4/IPv6 management in Europe: a small LIR or a huge Telco? That's why a bigger LIR should contribute MORE than a small one. As I said, just my 2 Euro cents > Tomas > > -- > S pozdravem, > Tom?? Hlav??ek > ------------------------------------------------- > IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 > Tel: +420 296 332 211 | Fax: +420 296 332 222 > Tel: +420 604 111 111 | Mobil: +420 603 111 111 > Web: http://www.ignum.cz | http://www.domena.cz > > > > ---- > 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 info at leadertelecom.ru Wed Jul 25 12:50:53 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:50:53 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002649] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <654E0BFE-8B7E-4C9D-80E2-87A5EEF95921@bais.name> References: <654E0BFE-8B7E-4C9D-80E2-87A5EEF95921@bais.name><20120724194317.GA98530@cilantro.c4inet.net> <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <1343199026.320476.72004583.205258.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1343213453.497330.223046532.205258.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear?Erik, Thank you for reply! How large companies will get IPs? Would you like to sell them this IPs? I think, no. It will be very difficult for large companies to accomulate many IPs. All waht will be changed - they will pay much more for the same IPs which they have right now. -- Alexey LeaderTelecom Ltd. Hi Alexey, I don't agree with your rational. Who are the ones with the largest (unused) supply of IP's .. The larger telco's. This will drive the cost for smaller LIR's, who don't have any already .. They don't care enough untill there is nothing left. That is when they will change to v6 or when their customers start complaining that they are on an intranet without ipv6, instead of the Internet. Regards, Erik Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 25 jul. 2012 om 08:50 heeft LeaderTelecom Ltd. het volgende geschreven: > > - Large (read as "rich") companies will be incentivised to accumulate > >?? more IPv4 "assets" in order to create a "closed shop", the access > >?? to which they control. > > It doesn't make sense. If cost of IPv4 will grow - this will stimulate ISP to switch to IPv6 faster. > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > ---- > 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: > [1]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: [2]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [2] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk Wed Jul 25 13:03:29 2012 From: thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk (Thomas Mangin) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:03:29 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: > They can continue operating their network without submitting to RIPE NCC authority, without paying their RIPE NCC bills and without coordination and registration services provided by RIPE NCC. This can lead to split of the Internet or to dissolution of RIPE NCC and it could cause considerable operational problems. Good point and unfortunately is an argument for signing the RIPE records - I do not like this idea much ... Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noc at flipsidedata.net Wed Jul 25 12:37:01 2012 From: noc at flipsidedata.net (Flipside Data Network Operations) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:37:01 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500FC67E.3000202@ukraine.su> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <500FC67E.3000202@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <500FCC4D.8040407@flipsidedata.net> On 25/07/12 11:12, Max Tulyev wrote: > Good idea! If they demand more taxes - we can move out to any of > off-shore jurisdictions. > Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure meaning little profit to tax? From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Jul 25 13:16:26 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:16:26 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <500FCC4D.8040407@flipsidedata.net> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <500FC67E.3000202@ukraine.su> <500FCC4D.8040407@flipsidedata.net> Message-ID: <20120725111626.GA14306@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Flipside Data Network Operations wrote: >Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member >organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure >meaning little profit to tax? I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be retained profits and subject to corpo tax. rgds, Sascha Luck From president at ukraine.su Wed Jul 25 13:16:33 2012 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:16:33 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <500FD591.2040502@ukraine.su> > With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really high > to stimulate people to return their unused resources or even higher to > force people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to return > resources that are currently in use. Why and how will use this huge extra income form that fee, if this happens? From mark.jones at talktalkplc.com Wed Jul 25 13:03:33 2012 From: mark.jones at talktalkplc.com (Mark Jones (MK)) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:03:33 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <001c01cd6a12$47e44430$d7accc90$@golding@othellotech.net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> <001c01cd6a12$47e44430$d7accc90$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: It's also not helped by some vendors cranking up expensive licence fees for companies to be able to use IPV6 on their products.. Mark -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: 25 July 2012 04:05 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion >> If we're going to "accelerate"the acceptance of IPv6 (which is in all >> of our >> interests) then anyone using PI IPv4 _probably_ needs some PI IPv6 >> >> If you're going to charge then for both you put an artificial barrier >> (doubling their cost), and they'll never want the v6 ... > > Have you considered that one hour of > engineering time would probably > cost a company ~?150 - ?300, including overheads? Regarding IPv6 ... End users don?t know what it is, don?t appear to want it, from take up certainly don?t seem to need it, and basically don?t care about it - they just want their pr0n to turn up quickly. > So your argument is that a cost > equivalent to 10 minutes of engineering time for a company is too much > for the company to bear if they want a provider independent v6 > presence on the Internet. No, I'm saying they don?t want ipv6 at all as they see no requirement for it, then you add making them pay for it in addition to their ipv4 will get you the response (from experience) "no thanks, no-one uses that" >> e.g. a /18 is charged more than a /24. >> Why ? >> What more work is there for RIPE to do ? > e.g. requests outside an assignment window. If my window is a /16 then the /18 is less work, than when your window is /26 and you request a /24 :p > Can I suggest you read the RIPE Annual Report for 2011? Been there, done that, have my own opinions on the expenditure ... > local asn do need to understand ASN32 natively, but this support has > been available on all cisco ios based platforms since 2009 and all > juniper platforms since 2008. > If you're running software this old on your transit routers, you have > bigger problems. You missed the point where I explained that we did all this 10 years ago ! 89% of the worlds desktops are running an OS which does things wrong with IPv6 DNS results when it gets a v6 result from DNS lookups and doesn?t have any v6 routes, so putting a site/service/system on ipv6 only cuts your potential audience by 9/10ths Deliberately putting people off of IPv6 by telling them they'll need expensive tech time (as you say) plus more contributions to ripe fees is not going to help takeup - my experience, YMMV Rob ---- 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. ############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb at talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ############################################################################## From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Jul 25 13:27:03 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:27:03 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120725112703.GB14306@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:31AM +0200, Tomas Hlavacek wrote: >With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really >high to stimulate people to return their unused resources or even >higher to force people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to >return resources that are currently in use. But if this ever happened, These fees would have to be higher than the profit they could expect from "selling" them to have that impact. If they were, that would possibly drive the market value up, thus making those resources an even *more valuable* asset so the fee would have to play catch-up all the time. Besides, all of this discussion is *still* about ipv4 and focused on getting LIRs to return IPv4 space so they can be re-allocated thus infinitely prolonging the survival of this obsolete and now largely unavailable technology. I'd much rather see the NCC abandoning all support for IPv4 and starting again with ipv6 only. And yes, I know that isn't really possible... rgds, Sascha Luck From noc at flipsidedata.net Wed Jul 25 13:27:34 2012 From: noc at flipsidedata.net (Flipside Data Network Operations) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:27:34 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120725111626.GA14306@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <500FC67E.3000202@ukraine.su> <500FCC4D.8040407@flipsidedata.net> <20120725111626.GA14306@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <500FD826.7080100@flipsidedata.net> On 25/07/12 12:16, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Flipside Data Network Operations wrote: > >> Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member >> organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure >> meaning little profit to tax? > > I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be > retained profits and subject to corpo tax. If the reserve is large enough that this is a problem, why aren't the fees reducing? From lir at lanto.it Wed Jul 25 13:28:57 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:28:57 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120725111626.GA14306@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <500FC67E.3000202@ukraine.su> <500FCC4D.8040407@flipsidedata.net> <20120725111626.GA14306@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <500FD879.5080100@lanto.it> Il 25/07/2012 13:16, Sascha Luck ha scritto: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Flipside Data Network Operations wrote: > >> Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member >> organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure >> meaning little profit to tax? > I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be > retained profits and subject to corpo tax. This is a no sense discussion. Actually RIPE divides LIRs into categories based on resources allocated to each LIRs, so fee is based on resources. It would be simple to keep actual calculation, WITHOUT any discount due to age of allocation. Then, scale the new fees to match actual incoming. For example, if new calculation takes to a raport of 12.5 between new calculation and actual RIPE budget, divide any fee by 12.5, so total income for RIPE will not change, but fee for each LIR would be more effective if compared to resource usage. Regards, Tonino > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > ---- > 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 info at leadertelecom.ru Wed Jul 25 13:40:40 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:40:40 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072501001399] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model In-Reply-To: <20120725111626.GA14306@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20120725111626.GA14306@cilantro.c4inet.net><4FFADB40.1000806@titley.com> <54E0FE38-B3B4-417F-84ED-16769EAE2A4D@ifom.eu> <500079A3.2090209@titley.com> <500FC67E.3000202@ukraine.su> <500FCC4D.8040407@flipsidedata.net> Message-ID: <1343216440.869460.426568853.205398.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> > I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be > retained profits and subject to corpo tax. Extra reserves can be returned to members as it was in 2008.? --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 25.07.2012 15:16 - Sascha Luck ???????(?): On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Flipside Data Network Operations wrote: >Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member >organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure >meaning little profit to tax? I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be retained profits and subject to corpo tax. rgds, Sascha Luck ---- 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: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz Wed Jul 25 13:49:56 2012 From: tomas.hlavacek at ignum.cz (Tomas Hlavacek) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:49:56 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500FD591.2040502@ukraine.su> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <500FD591.2040502@ukraine.su> Message-ID: Hello! On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > > With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really high > > to stimulate people to return their unused resources or even higher to > > force people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to return > > resources that are currently in use. > > Why and how will use this huge extra income form that fee, if this happens? Well I do not know... I wanted to say that you can set fee high enough to really achieve some effects on address distribution but it brings a risk of deep and irreversible changes in the whole industry. Or you can set the fees low, which is not going to cause anything good or bad. Tomas -- Tom?? Hlav??ek ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradsk? 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From president at ukraine.su Wed Jul 25 13:53:16 2012 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:53:16 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <500FD591.2040502@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <500FDE2C.608@ukraine.su> 25.07.12 14:49, Tomas Hlavacek ???????(??): > Why and how will use this huge extra income form that fee, if this > happens? > > > Well I do not know... I wanted to say that you can set fee high enough > to really achieve some effects on address distribution but it brings a > risk of deep and irreversible changes in the whole industry. Or you can > set the fees low, which is not going to cause anything good or bad. This is the main question. We should consider it well before RIPE NCC move from non-profit to profit company. From sebastian at noris.net Wed Jul 25 14:35:34 2012 From: sebastian at noris.net (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:35:34 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500FC7EB.5040000@ukraine.su> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500FC7EB.5040000@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20120725123534.GG2849@sol.office.noris.de> * Max Tulyev [2012-07-25 12:19]: > Absolutely sure. The majority of our IPv4 PI customers at least asked us > for IPv6 PI. But almost none of them qualify to get it. Others don't > want to pay for something can't do the money income. > > So if RIPE/RIPE NCC really want to push IPv6 - let's do two easy things: > change the qualify details for IPv6 PI and provide it free of charge for > several years. Hello, exactly what do you need to qualify for IPv6 PI? The last time I looked[1] there was no requirements except the contractual ones to get a /48. [1] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-552#IPv6_PI_Assignments Regards Sebastian -- noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Stra?e 16-20 - D-90471 N?rnberg Tel +49-911-9352-0 - Fax +49-911-9352-100 http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Hansjochen Klenk - Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG N?rnberg HRB 17689 From sebastian at noris.net Wed Jul 25 14:35:51 2012 From: sebastian at noris.net (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:35:51 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002649] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <1343213453.497330.223046532.205258.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <654E0BFE-8B7E-4C9D-80E2-87A5EEF95921@bais.name> <20120724194317.GA98530@cilantro.c4inet.net> <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <1343199026.320476.72004583.205258.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343213453.497330.223046532.205258.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <20120725123551.GH2849@sol.office.noris.de> * LeaderTelecom Ltd. [2012-07-25 12:51]: > Dear?Erik, > > Thank you for reply! How large companies will get IPs? > > Would you like to sell them this IPs? I think, no. It will be very difficult > for large companies to accomulate many IPs. All waht will be changed - they > will pay much more for the same IPs which they have right now. They will probably buy up smaller companies to get IPv4. The same way they do now to get patents. Regards Sebastian -- noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Stra?e 16-20 - D-90471 N?rnberg Tel +49-911-9352-0 - Fax +49-911-9352-100 http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Hansjochen Klenk - Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG N?rnberg HRB 17689 From sebastian at noris.net Wed Jul 25 14:35:12 2012 From: sebastian at noris.net (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:35:12 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500FC9DE.3080808@ukraine.su> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> <500FC9DE.3080808@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20120725123512.GF2849@sol.office.noris.de> * Max Tulyev [2012-07-25 12:27]: > You are right, but only if you mean the _commertial_ organisation. > > In transition or start-up period, educational, non-profit and amateur > organisations is generating the human resource will push the transition. > And yes, 50 EUR (+administrative expenses and procedures) can be a > serious barrier for them. > > It might be a good idea to provide IPv6 PI for education organisations > for free and without a lot of paperwork. At least, for several years. Hello, I can't help but chime in there: If 50 EUR + adminstrative expenses/procedures are a problem, how will they connect their IPv6 PI to the rest of the internet? Regards Sebastian -- noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Stra?e 16-20 - D-90471 N?rnberg Tel +49-911-9352-0 - Fax +49-911-9352-100 http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Hansjochen Klenk - Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG N?rnberg HRB 17689 From president at ukraine.su Wed Jul 25 14:41:33 2012 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:41:33 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <20120725123534.GG2849@sol.office.noris.de> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500FC7EB.5040000@ukraine.su> <20120725123534.GG2849@sol.office.noris.de> Message-ID: <500FE97D.2030708@ukraine.su> 25.07.12 15:35, Sebastian Wiesinger ???????(??): > exactly what do you need to qualify for IPv6 PI? The last time I > looked[1] there was no requirements except the contractual ones to get > a /48. Hostmasters rejects requests where some of IPv6 address space is for interconnecting third parties (i.e. interface IPs, colo, LAN with customers, etc), while for IPv4 PI it is possible and used widely. From president at ukraine.su Wed Jul 25 14:47:03 2012 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:47:03 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <20120725123512.GF2849@sol.office.noris.de> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> <500FC9DE.3080808@ukraine.su> <20120725123512.GF2849@sol.office.noris.de> Message-ID: <500FEAC7.1080204@ukraine.su> 25.07.12 15:35, Sebastian Wiesinger ???????(??): >> It might be a good idea to provide IPv6 PI for education organisations >> for free and without a lot of paperwork. At least, for several years. > > Hello, I can't help but chime in there: > > If 50 EUR + adminstrative expenses/procedures are a problem, how will > they connect their IPv6 PI to the rest of the internet? For free, of course ;) Our company provide IP transit service to a few of that organisations (schools, children computer clubs, etc). It is usual case in ex-USSR, especially in Central Asia countries that have no or small education budgets, as well as no or small IPv6 penetration. From sebastian at noris.net Wed Jul 25 14:51:21 2012 From: sebastian at noris.net (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:51:21 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500FEAC7.1080204@ukraine.su> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> <500FC9DE.3080808@ukraine.su> <20120725123512.GF2849@sol.office.noris.de> <500FEAC7.1080204@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20120725125121.GK2849@sol.office.noris.de> * Max Tulyev [2012-07-25 14:47]: > 25.07.12 15:35, Sebastian Wiesinger ???????(??): > >> It might be a good idea to provide IPv6 PI for education organisations > >> for free and without a lot of paperwork. At least, for several years. > > > > Hello, I can't help but chime in there: > > > > If 50 EUR + adminstrative expenses/procedures are a problem, how will > > they connect their IPv6 PI to the rest of the internet? > > For free, of course ;) > > Our company provide IP transit service to a few of that organisations > (schools, children computer clubs, etc). It is usual case in ex-USSR, > especially in Central Asia countries that have no or small education > budgets, as well as no or small IPv6 penetration. So why don't you charge them a smaller fee and pay the 50 EUR yourself as sponsoring LIR? Wouldn't that be a viable option? Regards Sebastian -- noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Stra?e 16-20 - D-90471 N?rnberg Tel +49-911-9352-0 - Fax +49-911-9352-100 http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Hansjochen Klenk - Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG N?rnberg HRB 17689 From sebastian at noris.net Wed Jul 25 14:51:36 2012 From: sebastian at noris.net (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:51:36 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500FE97D.2030708@ukraine.su> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500FC7EB.5040000@ukraine.su> <20120725123534.GG2849@sol.office.noris.de> <500FE97D.2030708@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20120725125136.GL2849@sol.office.noris.de> * Max Tulyev [2012-07-25 14:42]: > 25.07.12 15:35, Sebastian Wiesinger ???????(??): > > exactly what do you need to qualify for IPv6 PI? The last time I > > looked[1] there was no requirements except the contractual ones to get > > a /48. > > Hostmasters rejects requests where some of IPv6 address space is for > interconnecting third parties (i.e. interface IPs, colo, LAN with > customers, etc), while for IPv4 PI it is possible and used widely. Hello, PI for IPv4 has the same limitation: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-528#8 "In contrast, Provider Independent (PI) address space is assigned to End Users directly from the address pools managed directly by the RIPE NCC. PI space cannot be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties." So it violates the rules either way, v4 or v6. Regards Sebastian -- noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Stra?e 16-20 - D-90471 N?rnberg Tel +49-911-9352-0 - Fax +49-911-9352-100 http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Hansjochen Klenk - Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG N?rnberg HRB 17689 From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Jul 25 14:52:54 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:52:54 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <20120725123512.GF2849@sol.office.noris.de> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500F0379.2010804@netability.ie> <500FC9DE.3080808@ukraine.su> <20120725123512.GF2849@sol.office.noris.de> Message-ID: <20120725125254.GC14306@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 02:35:12PM +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: >If 50 EUR + adminstrative expenses/procedures are a problem, how will >they connect their IPv6 PI to the rest of the internet? "Meh, what is 50 EUR" is a bit of a western-european view. The NCC service region does include areas where EUR50 is a *lot* of money. rgds, Sascha Luck From mike.simkins at sungard.com Wed Jul 25 14:53:57 2012 From: mike.simkins at sungard.com (Mike Simkins) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:53:57 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <500FE97D.2030708@ukraine.su> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500FC7EB.5040000@ukraine.su> <20120725123534.GG2849@sol.office.noris.de> <500FE97D.2030708@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <01ac3dbefbc3032eebbc899ab9df61ec@mail.gmail.com> I do not believe you can use IPv4 PI for that, it is for the PI Holders OWN use only, not to be allocated to customers and so on -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev Sent: 25 July 2012 13:42 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion 25.07.12 15:35, Sebastian Wiesinger ???????(??): > exactly what do you need to qualify for IPv6 PI? The last time I > looked[1] there was no requirements except the contractual ones to get > a /48. Hostmasters rejects requests where some of IPv6 address space is for interconnecting third parties (i.e. interface IPs, colo, LAN with customers, etc), while for IPv4 PI it is possible and used widely. ---- 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 Tero.Toikkanen at nebula.fi Wed Jul 25 15:15:22 2012 From: Tero.Toikkanen at nebula.fi (Tero Toikkanen) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:15:22 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <01ac3dbefbc3032eebbc899ab9df61ec@mail.gmail.com> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500FC7EB.5040000@ukraine.su> <20120725123534.GG2849@sol.office.noris.de> <500FE97D.2030708@ukraine.su> <01ac3dbefbc3032eebbc899ab9df61ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <66810E018CDF3344A676D4025D23507001A022@office-exbe-02.office.nbl.fi> This is routinely circumvented using the Network Infrastructure and End User Networks clause of IPv4 allocation policy: "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure. These addresses do not have to be registered with the End User's contact details but can be registered as part of the service provider's internal infrastructure." That clause has been interpreted so that allowing the End User to use a small number of addresses (max 4, if remember correctly) from the PI allocation, it's OK. Such clause does not exist in IPv6-world, which makes IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI different in this respect. ____________________________________ Tero Toikkanen Nebula Oy > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mike Simkins > Sent: 25. hein?kuuta 2012 15:54 > To: Max Tulyev; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion > > I do not believe you can use IPv4 PI for that, it is for the PI Holders OWN use > only, not to be allocated to customers and so on > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev > Sent: 25 July 2012 13:42 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion > > 25.07.12 15:35, Sebastian Wiesinger ???????(??): > > exactly what do you need to qualify for IPv6 PI? The last time I > > looked[1] there was no requirements except the contractual ones to get > > a /48. > > Hostmasters rejects requests where some of IPv6 address space is for > interconnecting third parties (i.e. interface IPs, colo, LAN with customers, > etc), while for IPv4 PI it is possible and used widely. > > ---- > 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 anpier at fastnet.it Wed Jul 25 15:19:07 2012 From: anpier at fastnet.it (Andrea Pieralisi) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:19:07 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <66810E018CDF3344A676D4025D23507001A022@office-exbe-02.office.nbl.fi> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500FC7EB.5040000@ukraine.su> <20120725123534.GG2849@sol.office.noris.de> <500FE97D.2030708@ukraine.su> <01ac3dbefbc3032eebbc899ab9df61ec@mail.gmail.com> <66810E018CDF3344A676D4025D23507001A022@office-exbe-02.office.nbl.fi> Message-ID: <500FF24B.2010403@fastnet.it> Please unsubscive my mail from mailing list Thanks Il 25/07/2012 15:15, Tero Toikkanen ha scritto: > This is routinely circumvented using the Network Infrastructure and End User Networks clause of IPv4 allocation policy: > > "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure. These addresses do not have to be registered with the End User's contact details but can be registered as part of the service provider's internal infrastructure." > > That clause has been interpreted so that allowing the End User to use a small number of addresses (max 4, if remember correctly) from the PI allocation, it's OK. Such clause does not exist in IPv6-world, which makes IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI different in this respect. > > ____________________________________ > Tero Toikkanen > Nebula Oy > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mike Simkins >> Sent: 25. hein?kuuta 2012 15:54 >> To: Max Tulyev; members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion >> >> I do not believe you can use IPv4 PI for that, it is for the PI Holders OWN use >> only, not to be allocated to customers and so on >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev >> Sent: 25 July 2012 13:42 >> To: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion >> >> 25.07.12 15:35, Sebastian Wiesinger ???????(??): >>> exactly what do you need to qualify for IPv6 PI? The last time I >>> looked[1] there was no requirements except the contractual ones to get >>> a /48. >> Hostmasters rejects requests where some of IPv6 address space is for >> interconnecting third parties (i.e. interface IPs, colo, LAN with customers, >> etc), while for IPv4 PI it is possible and used widely. >> >> ---- >> 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. -- Tenute Pieralisi S.r.l. Soc. Agr. Andrea Pieralisi Amm. Del. Tel. +39 0731700385 Fax +39 0731703359 _andrea at pieralisi.it _ http://www.facebook.com/monteschiavovini Le informazioni contenute nella presente comunicazione e i relativi allegati possono essere riservate e sono, comunque, destinate esclusivamente alle persone o alle Societ? sopraindicati. La diffusione, distribuzione e/o copiatura del documento trasmesso da parte di qualsiasi soggetto diverso dal destinatario ? proibita, sia ai sensi dell?art. 616 c.p., che ai sensi del D.Lgs.n.196/2003. Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore, vi preghiamo di distruggerlo e di informarci immediatamente per telefono allo 0731/700385-700297 o inviando un messaggio all?indirizzo e-mail ? _info at monteschiavo.it _ The information in this e-mail (which includes any files transmitted with it) is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify us immediately, destroy any copies and delete it from your computer system. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoMonteSchiavo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7551 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Wed Jul 25 22:21:11 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:21:11 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <20120725125136.GL2849@sol.office.noris.de> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <025801cd69d3$d9a927d0$8cfb7770$@golding@othellotech.net> <500FC7EB.5040000@ukraine.su> <20120725123534.GG2849@sol.office.noris.de> <500FE97D.2030708@ukraine.su> <20120725125136.GL2849@sol.office.noris.de> Message-ID: <20120725202110.GX38127@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 02:51:36PM +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > PI for IPv4 has the same limitation: Actually, it hasn't, there's the exception for transit networks - which is used for lots of interesting things. This is completely off-topic on members-discuss, though - if you want to discuss the assignment rules for IPv4 or IPv6 PI space, please be my guest on the address-policy mailing list. (OTOH, *charging* for PI objects is decided by the membership, even though the address-policy WG expressed the recommendation to make it so) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From nick at netability.ie Thu Jul 26 19:58:32 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:58:32 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Next RIPE members GM, in A'dam In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20120719212225.003da4c0@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <201207182123.WAA07035@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <201207182123.WAA07035@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <5.1.1.6.2.20120719212225.003da4c0@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <50118548.10802@netability.ie> On 19/07/2012 19:24, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Almost all legacy IP holders will agree with the above statement. We are > not against paying our fair share. But how about a discussion? Listen to > the different sides of the debate and then make a decision, rather than > make unilateral decisions. The legacy resource holders have had 10 years to put forward some policies about this - the ERX project was completed in 2002. On the other hand, the NCC's action was surprising, to say the least. I'm having a hard time trying to convince myself that this isn't a policy issue and that the NCC was actually entitled to do what they did without community consultation. Nick From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Thu Jul 26 20:34:54 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:34:54 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120726183454.GA21649@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:23PM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote: >Thinking aloud, should RIPE propose several options every year instead >of one. This would surely reduce the debate as everyone would have a >chance to vote for their preferred pricing model. ( It may be a can of >worm, It may not be possible - I am not familiar with RIPE's governance The original 2012 proposal wasn't so bad actually, it just had a few ugly warts which is why I and a lot of others rejected it. So as not to be accused of just moaning and no solutions, how is this for a proposal? -Categories as before, possibly based on the Nov 2011 proposal. -sane category boundaries so that end-users and new LIRs will usually fall into the smallest category. -*No* double charging of Independent Resources. Either set a charge per or use them for category calgulation, not both. Personally, I fall on the side of a charge per resource as using PI/ASN for category calculation is impossible to do fairly. -No "aging" of resources for category calculation. I've never understood what makes a prefix allocated in 1999 different from one allocated in 2009 anyway. For IPv6 that would be farcical anyway. -The "setup fee" has to go or be drastically reduced. Nobody can tell me it is EUR 2k worth of work to set up a new customer. If it actually *is*, now is a good time to change that ineffective practice. Drop the free meeting tickets, if that makes a difference. Nobody uses them. Of the 10 tickets that the 5 LIRs that I do work for were entitled to, not one was used. -I'd argue that this should only include (and fund!) registry, training, K-root and rDNS service. Members who want RPKI, USB sticks or any other service can fund those via separate service fees. rgds, Sascha Luck >.... ) > >Thomas Mangin Exa 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 nick at netability.ie Fri Jul 27 00:00:21 2012 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:00:21 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <20120726183454.GA21649@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <20120726183454.GA21649@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <5011BDF5.5000609@netability.ie> On 26/07/2012 19:34, Sascha Luck wrote: > The original 2012 proposal wasn't so bad actually, it just had a few > ugly warts which is why I and a lot of others rejected it. I like the current charging scheme task force recommendations. Overall, they are pretty sensible, with the exception of the legacy address holders situation which I don't agree with as a unilateral position (but which I would agree with if the legacy holders are ok about it). However re: the board proposal for the 2013 charging scheme, I'm still concerned about: 1. the self selection categorisation, which is pretty non deterministic and which I believe will lead to all members ending up paying the same amount. This will end up being directly against the recommendations of the task force for several reasons (no differentiation in membership fees based on "size", unstable fees, charging based on service portfolio, charging based on internet number resources), and 2. (much the lesser issue because it has limited time scope) the default policy of lumping all the existing small members into medium which, will have the effect of causing a member which starts off as extra small any time between 2002 and 2011 and who registers the smallest amount of address space possible (i.e. a /21) to be bumped up to small in the year after registration and medium in 2013. /21 is not in general a medium sized LIR, no matter what way you look at it. The current minimum allocation is /21, and by policy you currently cannot get less. So even if there is a problem with the existing charging scheme, it is compounded significantly by the proposed new one, even if only for a single year. The only way you can have a /21 and get charged as extra small is if the /21 was registered more than 10 years ago. So, this is a failure of the current scheme. Please don't compound it with the new one. Fix it instead. Although it affects my company's LIR in exactly this fashion, there is a large number of other LIRs in exactly the same position. Because this exact problem affects ~2.5k LIRs, the proposal does not strike me as being a balanced charging policy and in its current form, I will be voting against it. I like the principles put forward in the task force report about differentiation in membership fees and having these fees based on size categories. As a member, I'm not happy that the new budget proposal has built without these principles at their core. I understand that my position does not take ipv6 resource usage into account, and that the default size of /32 will cover most LIR requirements for their entire lifetimes. However, I'd also take the points of view that a) the RIPE NCC is not yet ready to charge based primarily on ipv6 usage and b) charging for ipv4 registration is still actually relevant. Nick From info at leadertelecom.ru Fri Jul 27 01:11:45 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 03:11:45 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> Message-ID: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear Members, Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging?scheme based on count of used IPs.? Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI.?Hewlett-Packard Company. ? a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. ? b) See in remarks: "From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe.". This space must be return to RIPE by current policy. Case 2. Inetnum:?53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI.?Daimler AG. ? a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. ? b) This is not Telecom. Based on report Daimler AG: [1]http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/5520/workforce-development.html WorldWide Workforce: 271370 people. Does Daimler AG reely need real IP for each person? /8 =?16 777 216 IPs. So for each person in company Daimler AG need 16 777 216 / 271 370 = 64 IPs? Case 3.?Inetnum:?51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?EARLY-REGISTRATION.?UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. ? ?a) For free (legacy). ? ?b) This network doesn't have any routes.? Case 4.?Inetnum:151.3.0.0 -?151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). EARLY-REGISTRATION.?WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A.? ? ?a) For free (legacy). Case 5. Inetnum:?163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255?(?3 604 480?IPs ).?ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. ? ?a)?Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. ? ?b) This network doesn't have any routes.? It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it. Source Information from RIPE whois.? Date: ?27 July 2012. 01:30 inetnum: ? ? ? ?15.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255 netname: ? ? ? ?HP-INTERNET descr: ? ? ? ? ?Hewlett-Packard Company descr: ? ? ? ? ?European Networks Operation country: ? ? ? ?FR admin-c: ? ? ? ?VG1212 admin-c: ? ? ? ?DF5107 tech-c: ? ? ? ? VG1212 tech-c: ? ? ? ? DF5107 status: ? ? ? ? ASSIGNED PI remarks: ? ? ? ?Country is placeholder only. Real country is US. remarks: ? ? ? ?Refer to US registries for peering details. remarks: ? ? ? ?For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS71-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? person: ? ? ? ? Dominique Fillon address: ? ? ? ?Hewlett Packard Europe address: ? ? ? ?5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: ? ? ? ?Eybens address: ? ? ? ?Grenoble Cedex 9 address: ? ? ? ?38053 address: ? ? ? ?France phone: ? ? ? ? ?+33 4 76 14 17 66 fax-no: ? ? ? ? +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?DF5107 mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS71-MNT mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1889-MNT remarks: ? ? ? ?For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? person: ? ? ? ? Vincent Giles address: ? ? ? ?Hewlett Packard Europe address: ? ? ? ?5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: ? ? ? ?Eybens address: ? ? ? ?Grenoble Cedex 9 address: ? ? ? ?38053 address: ? ? ? ?France phone: ? ? ? ? ?+33 4 76 14 64 77 fax-no: ? ? ? ? +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?VG1212 mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS71-MNT mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1889-MNT remarks: ? ? ? ?For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered route: ? ? ? ? ?15.0.0.0/8 descr: ? ? ? ? ?HP-INTERNET origin: ? ? ? ? AS71 remarks: ? ? ? ?From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe. remarks: ? ? ? ?Refer to whois.arin.net & whois.ra.net remarks: ? ? ? ?For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS71-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? route: ? ? ? ? ?15.0.0.0/8 descr: ? ? ? ? ?Hewlett-Packard Company origin: ? ? ? ? AS7430 mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1889-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered =================================== inetnum: ? ? ? ?53.0.0.0 - 53.255.255.255 netname: ? ? ? ?DAIMLER-NET1 descr: ? ? ? ? ?Daimler AG country: ? ? ? ?DE admin-c: ? ? ? ?BS4256-RIPE tech-c: ? ? ? ? BS4256-RIPE status: ? ? ? ? ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DAIMLER-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? person: ? ? ? ? Bernhard Semmler address: ? ? ? ?Daimler AG address: ? ? ? ?HPC 0517 address: ? ? ? ?D-70546 Stuttgart address: ? ? ? ?Germany phone: ? ? ? ? ?+49 711 17 94591 fax-no: ? ? ? ? +49 711 17 79093478 nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?BS4256-RIPE mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DAIMLER-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? route: ? ? ? ? ?53.0.0.0/8 descr: ? ? ? ? ?DAIMLER-NET1 origin: ? ? ? ? AS31399 mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DAIMLER-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? ================================= inetnum: ? ? ? ?51.0.0.0 - 51.255.255.255 netname: ? ? ? ?UK-DWP descr: ? ? ? ? ?UK Government Department for Work and Pensions country: ? ? ? ?GB org: ? ? ? ? ? ?ORG-DWP1-RIPE admin-c: ? ? ? ?PW1754-RIPE tech-c: ? ? ? ? PW1754-RIPE status: ? ? ? ? EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DWP-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? organisation: ? ORG-DWP1-RIPE org-name: ? ? ? UK Government Department for Work and Pensions org-type: ? ? ? OTHER descr: ? ? ? ? ?UK Government Department address: ? ? ? ?301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England admin-c: ? ? ? ?PW1754-RIPE tech-c: ? ? ? ? PW1754-RIPE mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?DWP-MNT mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DWP-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? person: ? ? ? ? Peter Wightman address: ? ? ? ?301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England org: ? ? ? ? ? ?ORG-DWP1-RIPE phone: ? ? ? ? ?+44 1925 845368 nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?PW1754-RIPE mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DWP-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ================================================ inetnum: ? ? ? ?151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 netname: ? ? ? ?IT-WIND-LEGACY org: ? ? ? ? ? ?ORG-WTS2-RIPE descr: ? ? ? ? ?WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A descr: ? ? ? ? ?IUnet descr: ? ? ? ? ?Via Lorenteggio 257 descr: ? ? ? ? ?Milano, I-20100 country: ? ? ? ?IT admin-c: ? ? ? ?IIS1-RIPE tech-c: ? ? ? ? IIS1-RIPE status: ? ? ? ? EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: ? ? ? ? RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1267-MNT mnt-lower: ? ? ?AS1267-MNT mnt-routes: ? ? AS1267-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? organisation: ? ORG-WTS2-RIPE org-name: ? ? ? WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. org-type: ? ? ? LIR remarks: ? ? ? ?send mail to abuse at libero.it for complaints reguarding spam address: ? ? ? ?WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. Via Cesare Giulio Viola, 48 00148 Rome Italy phone: ? ? ? ? ?+39 06 8311 6718 fax-no: ? ? ? ? +39 02 3011 5572 admin-c: ? ? ? ?FP453-RIPE admin-c: ? ? ? ?CL856-RIPE mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?WIND-MNT mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: ? ? ? ? RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? person: ? ? ? ? Infostrada Internet Staff address: ? ? ? ?Infostrada SpA address: ? ? ? ?Via Lorenteggio 257 address: ? ? ? ?I-20152 Milano address: ? ? ? ?Italy phone: ? ? ? ? ?+39 02 30115015 nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?IIS1-RIPE mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1267-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ====================================== inetnum: ? ? ? ?163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 netname: ? ? ? ?EDF-NET05 descr: ? ? ? ? ?Electricite de France country: ? ? ? ?FR admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFC1-RIPE tech-c: ? ? ? ? EDFC2-RIPE org: ? ? ? ? ? ?ORG-EdF1-RIPE status: ? ? ? ? ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: ? ? ? ? MNT-EDF mnt-routes: ? ? MNT-EDF mnt-domains: ? ?MNT-EDF mnt-by: ? ? ? ? RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-lower: ? ? ?RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? organisation: ? ORG-EdF1-RIPE org-name: ? ? ? Electricite de France Service National org-type: ? ? ? LIR address: ? ? ? ?Electricite de France Service National R&T / ONR 32 avenue Pablo Picasso 92016 Nanterre France phone: ? ? ? ? ?+33 1 78 66 84 73 fax-no: ? ? ? ? +33 1 78 66 71 02 mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?MNT-EDF mnt-by: ? ? ? ? RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFC1-RIPE admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFC2-RIPE source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? role: ? ? ? ? ? EDF LIR Contact1 address: ? ? ? ?EDF - ?DIT/R&T/ONR address: ? ? ? ?32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: ? ? ? ?92016 - NANTERRE address: ? ? ? ?France admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFA-RIPE tech-c: ? ? ? ? EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?EDFC1-RIPE remarks: ? ? ? ?Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: ? ? ? ? MNT-EDF source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered ? role: ? ? ? ? ? EDF LIR Contact2 address: ? ? ? ?EDF - ?DIT/R&T/ONR address: ? ? ? ?32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: ? ? ? ?92016 - NANTERRE address: ? ? ? ?France admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFA-RIPE tech-c: ? ? ? ? EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?EDFC2-RIPE remarks: ? ? ? ?Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: ? ? ? ? MNT-EDF source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. [1] http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/5520/workforce-development.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Fri Jul 27 07:33:18 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:33:18 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: I think you confuse a lot of things here and your information is flawed, these are *not* RIPE objects, these are ARIN spaces which just happen to have a route and inetnum object in the RIPE DB (see ARIN DB, which is authoritive for HP and Daimler networks)... You also confuse Pre-RIR with RIR space, Both HP and Daimler have zero obligation to return this networks (sure, it would be nice if they do, but they don't need to). PS: 15.0.0.0/8 HAS a route, AS71 (HP-INTERNET-AS) - The Daimler /8 is announced as well, and so is the WIND Legacy (151.3.0.0/16 and .4-.95.0.0/16 on AS1267 ASN-INFOSTRADA) William Weber -- EDIS GmbH NOC AS57169 - at.edisgmh - RIPE: WW Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2012 um 01:11 schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd. : > Dear Members, > > Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs. > > Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Hewlett-Packard Company. > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) See in remarks: "From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe.". This space must be return to RIPE by current policy. > > Case 2. Inetnum: 53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Daimler AG. > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) This is not Telecom. Based on report Daimler AG: > http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/5520/workforce-development.html > WorldWide Workforce: 271370 people. Does Daimler AG reely need real IP for each person? > /8 = 16 777 216 IPs. So for each person in company Daimler AG need 16 777 216 / 271 370 = 64 IPs? > > Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. > a) For free (legacy). > b) This network doesn't have any routes. > > Case 4. Inetnum:151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). EARLY-REGISTRATION. WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. > a) For free (legacy). > > Case 5. Inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 ( 3 604 480 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) This network doesn't have any routes. > > It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it. > > > Source Information from RIPE whois. > > > Date: 27 July 2012. 01:30 > > inetnum: 15.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255 > netname: HP-INTERNET > descr: Hewlett-Packard Company > descr: European Networks Operation > country: FR > admin-c: VG1212 > admin-c: DF5107 > tech-c: VG1212 > tech-c: DF5107 > status: ASSIGNED PI > remarks: Country is placeholder only. Real country is US. > remarks: Refer to US registries for peering details. > remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > mnt-by: AS71-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Dominique Fillon > address: Hewlett Packard Europe > address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas > address: Eybens > address: Grenoble Cedex 9 > address: 38053 > address: France > phone: +33 4 76 14 17 66 > fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 > nic-hdl: DF5107 > mnt-by: AS71-MNT > mnt-by: AS1889-MNT > remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Vincent Giles > address: Hewlett Packard Europe > address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas > address: Eybens > address: Grenoble Cedex 9 > address: 38053 > address: France > phone: +33 4 76 14 64 77 > fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 > nic-hdl: VG1212 > mnt-by: AS71-MNT > mnt-by: AS1889-MNT > remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > source: RIPE #Filtered > > > route: 15.0.0.0/8 > descr: HP-INTERNET > origin: AS71 > remarks: From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe. > remarks: Refer to whois.arin.net & whois.ra.net > remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > mnt-by: AS71-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > route: 15.0.0.0/8 > descr: Hewlett-Packard Company > origin: AS7430 > mnt-by: AS1889-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > =================================== > > inetnum: 53.0.0.0 - 53.255.255.255 > netname: DAIMLER-NET1 > descr: Daimler AG > country: DE > admin-c: BS4256-RIPE > tech-c: BS4256-RIPE > status: ASSIGNED PI > mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Bernhard Semmler > address: Daimler AG > address: HPC 0517 > address: D-70546 Stuttgart > address: Germany > phone: +49 711 17 94591 > fax-no: +49 711 17 79093478 > nic-hdl: BS4256-RIPE > mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > route: 53.0.0.0/8 > descr: DAIMLER-NET1 > origin: AS31399 > mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > ================================= > > inetnum: 51.0.0.0 - 51.255.255.255 > netname: UK-DWP > descr: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions > country: GB > org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE > admin-c: PW1754-RIPE > tech-c: PW1754-RIPE > status: EARLY-REGISTRATION > mnt-by: DWP-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > organisation: ORG-DWP1-RIPE > org-name: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions > org-type: OTHER > descr: UK Government Department > address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England > admin-c: PW1754-RIPE > tech-c: PW1754-RIPE > mnt-ref: DWP-MNT > mnt-by: DWP-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Peter Wightman > address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England > org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE > phone: +44 1925 845368 > nic-hdl: PW1754-RIPE > mnt-by: DWP-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > ================================================ > > inetnum: 151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 > netname: IT-WIND-LEGACY > org: ORG-WTS2-RIPE > descr: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A > descr: IUnet > descr: Via Lorenteggio 257 > descr: Milano, I-20100 > country: IT > admin-c: IIS1-RIPE > tech-c: IIS1-RIPE > status: EARLY-REGISTRATION > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-by: AS1267-MNT > mnt-lower: AS1267-MNT > mnt-routes: AS1267-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > organisation: ORG-WTS2-RIPE > org-name: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. > org-type: LIR > remarks: send mail to abuse at libero.it for complaints reguarding spam > address: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. Via Cesare Giulio Viola, 48 00148 Rome Italy > phone: +39 06 8311 6718 > fax-no: +39 02 3011 5572 > admin-c: FP453-RIPE > admin-c: CL856-RIPE > mnt-ref: WIND-MNT > mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Infostrada Internet Staff > address: Infostrada SpA > address: Via Lorenteggio 257 > address: I-20152 Milano > address: Italy > phone: +39 02 30115015 > nic-hdl: IIS1-RIPE > mnt-by: AS1267-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > ====================================== > > inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 > netname: EDF-NET05 > descr: Electricite de France > country: FR > admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE > tech-c: EDFC2-RIPE > org: ORG-EdF1-RIPE > status: ASSIGNED PI > mnt-by: MNT-EDF > mnt-routes: MNT-EDF > mnt-domains: MNT-EDF > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT > mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > organisation: ORG-EdF1-RIPE > org-name: Electricite de France Service National > org-type: LIR > address: Electricite de France Service National R&T / ONR 32 avenue Pablo Picasso 92016 Nanterre France > phone: +33 1 78 66 84 73 > fax-no: +33 1 78 66 71 02 > mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-ref: MNT-EDF > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE > admin-c: EDFC2-RIPE > source: RIPE #Filtered > > role: EDF LIR Contact1 > address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR > address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso > address: 92016 - NANTERRE > address: France > admin-c: EDFA-RIPE > tech-c: EDFT-RIPE > nic-hdl: EDFC1-RIPE > remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF > mnt-by: MNT-EDF > source: RIPE #Filtered > > role: EDF LIR Contact2 > address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR > address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso > address: 92016 - NANTERRE > address: France > admin-c: EDFA-RIPE > tech-c: EDFT-RIPE > nic-hdl: EDFC2-RIPE > remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF > mnt-by: MNT-EDF > source: RIPE #Filtered > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > ---- > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Fri Jul 27 10:12:34 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:12:34 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> Message-ID: <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear?William, > I think you confuse a lot of things here and your information is flawed, > these are *not* RIPE objects, these are ARIN spaces which just happen to > have a route and inetnum object in the RIPE DB (see ARIN DB, which is > authoritive for HP and Daimler networks)... O! Yes, thank you. This 2 in ARIN DB for now. > WIND Legacy (151.3.0.0/16 and .4-.95.0.0/16 on AS1267 ASN-INFOSTRADA) They have routes, but not pay for this resource to RIPE. May be all this IPs in use. But I very sceptical that they use all 5 miliones IPs. Anyway they don't pay for this resources. And it is Legacy right now. > Case 3.?Inetnum:?51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?EARLY-REGISTRATION.? > UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. > ? a)?For free (legacy). > ? b) This network doesn't have any routes.? What about this /8 network? It is legacy and doesn't have any routes. > Case 5. Inetnum:?163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255?(?3 604 480?IPs ).? > ASSIGNED PI.?Electricite de France. > ? a)?Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this > resource?only 50 EUR. > ? b) This network doesn't have any routes.? The same. Do you need another examples? Case 6.?Inetnum: 171.28.0.0 - 171.30.255.255 ( 196 608 IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI. Global Crossing. ? ?a)?Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource?only 50 EUR. ? ?b)?This network has routes for part of space ( 171.30.0.0/16). Case 7. Inetnum: 193.244.0.0 ?- 193.245.255.255?( 131 072?IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI. KBC Group NV ? ?a)?Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource?only 50 EUR. ? ?b)?This network doesn't have any routes.? Case 8.?Inetnum:?148.252.0.0 - 148.253.255.255?(?131 072?IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) ? ?a)?Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource?only 50 EUR. ? ?b)?This network doesn't have any routes.? Case 9.?Inetnum:?161.89.0.0 - 161.90.255.255?(?131 072?IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI. Atos Origin. ? ?a)?Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource?only 50 EUR. ? ?b)?This network has routes. Case 10. Inetnum:?157.28.0.0 - 157.29.255.255 ( 131 072?IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI.?BT Italia S.p.A. (formerly Albacom S.p.A) ? ?a)?Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource?only 50 EUR. ? ?b)?This network has routes. I suggest to stop charge 50 EUR for each PI resource. We have a lot of examples when company can use more than 100 000 IPs and pay 50 EUR to RIPE. And we have a lot of LIRs which pay 2000 EUR Sign-up Fee and 1300-1800 EUR every year and use 512-1024 IP. The?contribution from membership and value are too different. --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com Fri Jul 27 10:15:50 2012 From: Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com (Jamie Stallwood) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:15:50 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A1404061581FB@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> At risk of giving away state secrets, some of UK Gov?s 51/8 is indeed used, just that you can?t see it. I don?t believe that membership charging scheme should be influenced in any way by the ?IPv4 conservationists?. Member fees are for member services, and nothing else. Yes, the bigger players should contribute *slightly* more, so we can keep the fees competitive for new entrants (more members = better for everyone), and there can be ways to ?encourage? fair play. Now let?s hear no more of this ?charge-per-IP? nonsense? Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 0844 225 2888 Mob: 07795 840385 Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com NIC Handle: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE *Personal opinion disclaimer goes here* From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 27 July 2012 00:12 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Cc: Nigel Titley Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region Dear Members, Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs. Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. a) For free (legacy). b) This network doesn't have any routes. It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it. -- 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 ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Fri Jul 27 10:24:07 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:24:07 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> Dear Alexey, WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they run NAT now... Case 3.: Yes, unused BUT legacy - I think you did not understand that the RIPE (and no other RIR) has *ANY* authority over this networks - Neither RIPE, nor ARIN, not even ICANN, can force these to return their space. Case 5,6,7,8.: There are maybe some routes inside this network, who knows - it could may be returned. Case 9/10.: These are used. This spaces are mainly very, very, very old (new registrations JUST after RIPE was established) - PI was completely different handled back then (nearly anyone used PI instead of PA)... -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william at edisglobal.com | william at edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 27.07.2012 um 10:12 schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.: > Dear William, > > > I think you confuse a lot of things here and your information is flawed, > > these are *not* RIPE objects, these are ARIN spaces which just happen to > > have a route and inetnum object in the RIPE DB (see ARIN DB, which is > > authoritive for HP and Daimler networks)... > O! Yes, thank you. This 2 in ARIN DB for now. > > > WIND Legacy (151.3.0.0/16 and .4-.95.0.0/16 on AS1267 ASN-INFOSTRADA) > They have routes, but not pay for this resource to RIPE. May be all this IPs in use. But I very sceptical that they use all 5 miliones IPs. Anyway they don't pay for this resources. And it is Legacy right now. > > > Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. > > UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. > > a) For free (legacy). > > b) This network doesn't have any routes. > > What about this /8 network? It is legacy and doesn't have any routes. > > > Case 5. Inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 ( 3 604 480 IPs ). > > ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. > > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this > > resource only 50 EUR. > > b) This network doesn't have any routes. > > The same. > > Do you need another examples? > > Case 6. Inetnum: 171.28.0.0 - 171.30.255.255 ( 196 608 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Global Crossing. > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) This network has routes for part of space ( 171.30.0.0/16). > > Case 7. Inetnum: 193.244.0.0 - 193.245.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. KBC Group NV > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) This network doesn't have any routes. > > Case 8. Inetnum: 148.252.0.0 - 148.253.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) This network doesn't have any routes. > > Case 9. Inetnum: 161.89.0.0 - 161.90.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Atos Origin. > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) This network has routes. > > Case 10. Inetnum: 157.28.0.0 - 157.29.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. BT Italia S.p.A. (formerly Albacom S.p.A) > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) This network has routes. > > I suggest to stop charge 50 EUR for each PI resource. We have a lot of examples when company can use more than 100 000 IPs and pay 50 EUR to RIPE. And we have a lot of LIRs which pay 2000 EUR Sign-up Fee and 1300-1800 EUR every year and use 512-1024 IP. The contribution from membership and value are too different. > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > ---- > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik at datahouse.nl Fri Jul 27 08:29:37 2012 From: erik at datahouse.nl (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:29:37 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl> Hi Alexey, Historic allocations won't be changed, except if these companies give some of their space back by their own. Not seeing any routes in DFZ, doesn't mean it is un-used or free. I know that the Dutch KPN uses large subnets internally in their network for management and such, without routing these subnets into the DFZ. That will also apply to companies like HP and alike. And if the new transfer policy comes into place, it will probably come on the 'market' if they don't need it. I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ... That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. There is probably much more to be found on free or un-used space within the current allocations, lirs that have merged with others, un-used (but still routed space) you name it, but that whatever policy we are trying to make here, it won't fix it... V4 is almost depleted, get over it, why prolong the inevitable.. That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... I love to be proven wrong but I'm willing to take bets on that .. Which should be taken as a fair warning that you will loose your money ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ... Regards, Erik Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 27 jul. 2012 om 01:11 heeft LeaderTelecom Ltd. het volgende geschreven: > Dear Members, > > Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs. > > Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Hewlett-Packard Company. > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) See in remarks: "From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe.". This space must be return to RIPE by current policy. > > Case 2. Inetnum: 53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Daimler AG. > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) This is not Telecom. Based on report Daimler AG: > http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/5520/workforce-development.html > WorldWide Workforce: 271370 people. Does Daimler AG reely need real IP for each person? > /8 = 16 777 216 IPs. So for each person in company Daimler AG need 16 777 216 / 271 370 = 64 IPs? > > Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. > a) For free (legacy). > b) This network doesn't have any routes. > > Case 4. Inetnum:151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). EARLY-REGISTRATION. WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. > a) For free (legacy). > > Case 5. Inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 ( 3 604 480 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. > a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > b) This network doesn't have any routes. > > It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it. > > > Source Information from RIPE whois. > > > Date: 27 July 2012. 01:30 > > inetnum: 15.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255 > netname: HP-INTERNET > descr: Hewlett-Packard Company > descr: European Networks Operation > country: FR > admin-c: VG1212 > admin-c: DF5107 > tech-c: VG1212 > tech-c: DF5107 > status: ASSIGNED PI > remarks: Country is placeholder only. Real country is US. > remarks: Refer to US registries for peering details. > remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > mnt-by: AS71-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Dominique Fillon > address: Hewlett Packard Europe > address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas > address: Eybens > address: Grenoble Cedex 9 > address: 38053 > address: France > phone: +33 4 76 14 17 66 > fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 > nic-hdl: DF5107 > mnt-by: AS71-MNT > mnt-by: AS1889-MNT > remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Vincent Giles > address: Hewlett Packard Europe > address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas > address: Eybens > address: Grenoble Cedex 9 > address: 38053 > address: France > phone: +33 4 76 14 64 77 > fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 > nic-hdl: VG1212 > mnt-by: AS71-MNT > mnt-by: AS1889-MNT > remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > source: RIPE #Filtered > > > route: 15.0.0.0/8 > descr: HP-INTERNET > origin: AS71 > remarks: From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe. > remarks: Refer to whois.arin.net & whois.ra.net > remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > mnt-by: AS71-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > route: 15.0.0.0/8 > descr: Hewlett-Packard Company > origin: AS7430 > mnt-by: AS1889-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > =================================== > > inetnum: 53.0.0.0 - 53.255.255.255 > netname: DAIMLER-NET1 > descr: Daimler AG > country: DE > admin-c: BS4256-RIPE > tech-c: BS4256-RIPE > status: ASSIGNED PI > mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Bernhard Semmler > address: Daimler AG > address: HPC 0517 > address: D-70546 Stuttgart > address: Germany > phone: +49 711 17 94591 > fax-no: +49 711 17 79093478 > nic-hdl: BS4256-RIPE > mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > route: 53.0.0.0/8 > descr: DAIMLER-NET1 > origin: AS31399 > mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > ================================= > > inetnum: 51.0.0.0 - 51.255.255.255 > netname: UK-DWP > descr: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions > country: GB > org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE > admin-c: PW1754-RIPE > tech-c: PW1754-RIPE > status: EARLY-REGISTRATION > mnt-by: DWP-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > organisation: ORG-DWP1-RIPE > org-name: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions > org-type: OTHER > descr: UK Government Department > address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England > admin-c: PW1754-RIPE > tech-c: PW1754-RIPE > mnt-ref: DWP-MNT > mnt-by: DWP-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Peter Wightman > address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England > org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE > phone: +44 1925 845368 > nic-hdl: PW1754-RIPE > mnt-by: DWP-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > ================================================ > > inetnum: 151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 > netname: IT-WIND-LEGACY > org: ORG-WTS2-RIPE > descr: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A > descr: IUnet > descr: Via Lorenteggio 257 > descr: Milano, I-20100 > country: IT > admin-c: IIS1-RIPE > tech-c: IIS1-RIPE > status: EARLY-REGISTRATION > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-by: AS1267-MNT > mnt-lower: AS1267-MNT > mnt-routes: AS1267-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > organisation: ORG-WTS2-RIPE > org-name: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. > org-type: LIR > remarks: send mail to abuse at libero.it for complaints reguarding spam > address: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. Via Cesare Giulio Viola, 48 00148 Rome Italy > phone: +39 06 8311 6718 > fax-no: +39 02 3011 5572 > admin-c: FP453-RIPE > admin-c: CL856-RIPE > mnt-ref: WIND-MNT > mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > person: Infostrada Internet Staff > address: Infostrada SpA > address: Via Lorenteggio 257 > address: I-20152 Milano > address: Italy > phone: +39 02 30115015 > nic-hdl: IIS1-RIPE > mnt-by: AS1267-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > ====================================== > > inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 > netname: EDF-NET05 > descr: Electricite de France > country: FR > admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE > tech-c: EDFC2-RIPE > org: ORG-EdF1-RIPE > status: ASSIGNED PI > mnt-by: MNT-EDF > mnt-routes: MNT-EDF > mnt-domains: MNT-EDF > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT > mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT > source: RIPE #Filtered > > organisation: ORG-EdF1-RIPE > org-name: Electricite de France Service National > org-type: LIR > address: Electricite de France Service National R&T / ONR 32 avenue Pablo Picasso 92016 Nanterre France > phone: +33 1 78 66 84 73 > fax-no: +33 1 78 66 71 02 > mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-ref: MNT-EDF > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE > admin-c: EDFC2-RIPE > source: RIPE #Filtered > > role: EDF LIR Contact1 > address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR > address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso > address: 92016 - NANTERRE > address: France > admin-c: EDFA-RIPE > tech-c: EDFT-RIPE > nic-hdl: EDFC1-RIPE > remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF > mnt-by: MNT-EDF > source: RIPE #Filtered > > role: EDF LIR Contact2 > address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR > address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso > address: 92016 - NANTERRE > address: France > admin-c: EDFA-RIPE > tech-c: EDFT-RIPE > nic-hdl: EDFC2-RIPE > remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF > mnt-by: MNT-EDF > source: RIPE #Filtered > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > ---- > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cfriacas at fccn.pt Fri Jul 27 10:54:34 2012 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:54:34 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: <20120726183454.GA21649@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <20120724170455.GV38127@Space.Net> <20120726183454.GA21649@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: Please see inline. On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:23PM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote: >> Thinking aloud, should RIPE propose several options every year instead >> of one. This would surely reduce the debate as everyone would have a >> chance to vote for their preferred pricing model. ( It may be a can of >> worm, It may not be possible - I am not familiar with RIPE's governance > > The original 2012 proposal wasn't so bad actually, it just had a few > ugly warts which is why I and a lot of others rejected it. > > So as not to be accused of just moaning and no solutions, how is this > for a proposal? > > -Categories as before, possibly based on the Nov 2011 proposal. > -sane category boundaries so that end-users and new LIRs will usually > fall into the smallest category. > > -*No* double charging of Independent Resources. Either set a charge per > or use them for category calgulation, not both. Personally, I fall on > the side of a charge per resource as using PI/ASN for category > calculation is impossible to do fairly. > > -No "aging" of resources for category calculation. I've never understood > what makes a prefix allocated in 1999 different from one allocated in > 2009 anyway. For IPv6 that would be farcical anyway. this benefits early adopters, no doubt. maybe most of people driving policies are early adopters -- it wouldn't be a surprise for me. but between 1999 and 2009 there is a difference of 10 years' fees. maybe this is a "bonus discount" for having paid previous fees and keep using the space? maybe someone on the list could explain what was the original rationale/argument for this... > -The "setup fee" has to go or be drastically reduced. Nobody can tell > me it is EUR 2k worth of work to set up a new customer. If it actually *member*... ;-) > *is*, now is a good time to change that ineffective practice. > Drop the free meeting tickets, if that makes a difference. Nobody uses > them. Of the 10 tickets that the 5 LIRs that I do work for were entitled > to, not one was used. i would personally agree with that, but i guess the NCC should have more precise numbers about it. > -I'd argue that this should only include (and fund!) registry, training, > K-root and rDNS service. Members who want RPKI, USB sticks or any other > service can fund those via separate service fees. agree. Regards, Carlos > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > > > > > > >> .... ) >> >> Thomas Mangin Exa 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. > > ---- > 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 cfriacas at fccn.pt Fri Jul 27 11:30:57 2012 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:30:57 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl> Message-ID: Hello, I also think there is a strong message on the "doing v6 for 15 years already" part. Probably most people are not "getting over it", but at least they know they can jump onto something which is working for many years now... Regards, Carlos On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > Historic allocations won't be changed, except if these companies give some of their space back by their own.? > Not seeing any routes in DFZ, doesn't mean it is un-used or free. I know that the Dutch KPN uses large subnets internally in their > network for management and such, without routing these subnets into the DFZ. That will also apply to companies like HP and alike. And if > the new transfer policy comes into place, it will probably come on the 'market' if they don't need it.? > I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if > they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : > > Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ... > > That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. > > There is probably much more to be found on free or un-used space within the current allocations, lirs that have merged with others, > un-used (but still routed space) you name it, but that whatever policy we are trying to make here, it won't fix it... V4 is almost > depleted, get over it, why prolong the inevitable..? > > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice > based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ...? > > I love to be proven wrong but I'm willing to take bets on that .. Which should be taken as a fair warning that you will loose your money > ...? > > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it > on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...? > > Regards, > Erik > > > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > > Op 27 jul. 2012 om 01:11 heeft LeaderTelecom Ltd. het volgende geschreven: > > Dear Members, > > Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to > charging?scheme based on count of used IPs.? > > Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI.?Hewlett-Packard Company. > ? a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > ? b) See in remarks: "From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe.". This space must be return to RIPE by current policy. > > Case 2. Inetnum:?53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI.?Daimler AG. > ? a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > ? b) This is not Telecom. Based on report Daimler AG: > http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/5520/workforce-development.html > WorldWide Workforce: 271370 people. Does Daimler AG reely need real IP for each person? > /8 =?16 777 216 IPs. So for each person in company Daimler AG need 16 777 216 / 271 370 = 64 IPs? > > Case 3.?Inetnum:?51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?EARLY-REGISTRATION.?UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. > ? ?a) For free (legacy). > ? ?b) This network doesn't have any routes.? > > Case 4.?Inetnum:151.3.0.0 -?151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs).?EARLY-REGISTRATION.?WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A.? > ? ?a) For free (legacy). > > Case 5. Inetnum:?163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255?(?3 604 480?IPs ).?ASSIGNED PI.?Electricite de France. > ? ?a)?Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. > ? ?b) This network doesn't have any routes.? > > It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 > EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each > IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we > can distribute between members who realy need it. > > > Source Information from RIPE whois.? > > > Date: ?27 July 2012. 01:30 > > inetnum: ? ? ? ?15.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255 > netname: ? ? ? ?HP-INTERNET > descr: ? ? ? ? ?Hewlett-Packard Company > descr: ? ? ? ? ?European Networks Operation > country: ? ? ? ?FR > admin-c: ? ? ? ?VG1212 > admin-c: ? ? ? ?DF5107 > tech-c: ? ? ? ? VG1212 > tech-c: ? ? ? ? DF5107 > status: ? ? ? ? ASSIGNED PI > remarks: ? ? ? ?Country is placeholder only. Real country is US. > remarks: ? ? ? ?Refer to US registries for peering details. > remarks: ? ? ? ?For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS71-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > person: ? ? ? ? Dominique Fillon > address: ? ? ? ?Hewlett Packard Europe > address: ? ? ? ?5, Avenus Raymond Chanas > address: ? ? ? ?Eybens > address: ? ? ? ?Grenoble Cedex 9 > address: ? ? ? ?38053 > address: ? ? ? ?France > phone: ? ? ? ? ?+33 4 76 14 17 66 > fax-no: ? ? ? ? +33 4 76 14 69 00 > nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?DF5107 > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS71-MNT > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1889-MNT > remarks: ? ? ? ?For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > person: ? ? ? ? Vincent Giles > address: ? ? ? ?Hewlett Packard Europe > address: ? ? ? ?5, Avenus Raymond Chanas > address: ? ? ? ?Eybens > address: ? ? ? ?Grenoble Cedex 9 > address: ? ? ? ?38053 > address: ? ? ? ?France > phone: ? ? ? ? ?+33 4 76 14 64 77 > fax-no: ? ? ? ? +33 4 76 14 69 00 > nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?VG1212 > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS71-MNT > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1889-MNT > remarks: ? ? ? ?For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? > route: ? ? ? ? ?15.0.0.0/8 > descr: ? ? ? ? ?HP-INTERNET > origin: ? ? ? ? AS71 > remarks: ? ? ? ?From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe. > remarks: ? ? ? ?Refer to whois.arin.net & whois.ra.net > remarks: ? ? ? ?For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse at hp.com > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS71-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > route: ? ? ? ? ?15.0.0.0/8 > descr: ? ? ? ? ?Hewlett-Packard Company > origin: ? ? ? ? AS7430 > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1889-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > > =================================== > > inetnum: ? ? ? ?53.0.0.0 - 53.255.255.255 > netname: ? ? ? ?DAIMLER-NET1 > descr: ? ? ? ? ?Daimler AG > country: ? ? ? ?DE > admin-c: ? ? ? ?BS4256-RIPE > tech-c: ? ? ? ? BS4256-RIPE > status: ? ? ? ? ASSIGNED PI > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DAIMLER-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > person: ? ? ? ? Bernhard Semmler > address: ? ? ? ?Daimler AG > address: ? ? ? ?HPC 0517 > address: ? ? ? ?D-70546 Stuttgart > address: ? ? ? ?Germany > phone: ? ? ? ? ?+49 711 17 94591 > fax-no: ? ? ? ? +49 711 17 79093478 > nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?BS4256-RIPE > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DAIMLER-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? > ? > route: ? ? ? ? ?53.0.0.0/8 > descr: ? ? ? ? ?DAIMLER-NET1 > origin: ? ? ? ? AS31399 > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DAIMLER-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > ================================= > > inetnum: ? ? ? ?51.0.0.0 - 51.255.255.255 > netname: ? ? ? ?UK-DWP > descr: ? ? ? ? ?UK Government Department for Work and Pensions > country: ? ? ? ?GB > org: ? ? ? ? ? ?ORG-DWP1-RIPE > admin-c: ? ? ? ?PW1754-RIPE > tech-c: ? ? ? ? PW1754-RIPE > status: ? ? ? ? EARLY-REGISTRATION > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DWP-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > organisation: ? ORG-DWP1-RIPE > org-name: ? ? ? UK Government Department for Work and Pensions > org-type: ? ? ? OTHER > descr: ? ? ? ? ?UK Government Department > address: ? ? ? ?301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England > admin-c: ? ? ? ?PW1754-RIPE > tech-c: ? ? ? ? PW1754-RIPE > mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?DWP-MNT > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DWP-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > person: ? ? ? ? Peter Wightman > address: ? ? ? ?301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England > org: ? ? ? ? ? ?ORG-DWP1-RIPE > phone: ? ? ? ? ?+44 1925 845368 > nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?PW1754-RIPE > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? DWP-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? > ================================================ > > inetnum: ? ? ? ?151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 > netname: ? ? ? ?IT-WIND-LEGACY > org: ? ? ? ? ? ?ORG-WTS2-RIPE > descr: ? ? ? ? ?WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A > descr: ? ? ? ? ?IUnet > descr: ? ? ? ? ?Via Lorenteggio 257 > descr: ? ? ? ? ?Milano, I-20100 > country: ? ? ? ?IT > admin-c: ? ? ? ?IIS1-RIPE > tech-c: ? ? ? ? IIS1-RIPE > status: ? ? ? ? EARLY-REGISTRATION > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1267-MNT > mnt-lower: ? ? ?AS1267-MNT > mnt-routes: ? ? AS1267-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > organisation: ? ORG-WTS2-RIPE > org-name: ? ? ? WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. > org-type: ? ? ? LIR > remarks: ? ? ? ?send mail to abuse at libero.it for complaints reguarding spam > address: ? ? ? ?WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. Via Cesare Giulio Viola, 48 00148 Rome Italy > phone: ? ? ? ? ?+39 06 8311 6718 > fax-no: ? ? ? ? +39 02 3011 5572 > admin-c: ? ? ? ?FP453-RIPE > admin-c: ? ? ? ?CL856-RIPE > mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?WIND-MNT > mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > person: ? ? ? ? Infostrada Internet Staff > address: ? ? ? ?Infostrada SpA > address: ? ? ? ?Via Lorenteggio 257 > address: ? ? ? ?I-20152 Milano > address: ? ? ? ?Italy > phone: ? ? ? ? ?+39 02 30115015 > nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?IIS1-RIPE > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? AS1267-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > > ====================================== > > inetnum: ? ? ? ?163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 > netname: ? ? ? ?EDF-NET05 > descr: ? ? ? ? ?Electricite de France > country: ? ? ? ?FR > admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFC1-RIPE > tech-c: ? ? ? ? EDFC2-RIPE > org: ? ? ? ? ? ?ORG-EdF1-RIPE > status: ? ? ? ? ASSIGNED PI > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? MNT-EDF > mnt-routes: ? ? MNT-EDF > mnt-domains: ? ?MNT-EDF > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT > mnt-lower: ? ? ?RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > organisation: ? ORG-EdF1-RIPE > org-name: ? ? ? Electricite de France Service National > org-type: ? ? ? LIR > address: ? ? ? ?Electricite de France Service National R&T / ONR 32 avenue Pablo Picasso 92016 Nanterre France > phone: ? ? ? ? ?+33 1 78 66 84 73 > fax-no: ? ? ? ? +33 1 78 66 71 02 > mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-ref: ? ? ? ?MNT-EDF > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFC1-RIPE > admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFC2-RIPE > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > role: ? ? ? ? ? EDF LIR Contact1 > address: ? ? ? ?EDF - ?DIT/R&T/ONR > address: ? ? ? ?32, avenue Pablo Picasso > address: ? ? ? ?92016 - NANTERRE > address: ? ? ? ?France > admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFA-RIPE > tech-c: ? ? ? ? EDFT-RIPE > nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?EDFC1-RIPE > remarks: ? ? ? ?Contacts for the LIR EDF > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? MNT-EDF > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > ? > role: ? ? ? ? ? EDF LIR Contact2 > address: ? ? ? ?EDF - ?DIT/R&T/ONR > address: ? ? ? ?32, avenue Pablo Picasso > address: ? ? ? ?92016 - NANTERRE > address: ? ? ? ?France > admin-c: ? ? ? ?EDFA-RIPE > tech-c: ? ? ? ? EDFT-RIPE > nic-hdl: ? ? ? ?EDFC2-RIPE > remarks: ? ? ? ?Contacts for the LIR EDF > mnt-by: ? ? ? ? MNT-EDF > source: ? ? ? ? RIPE #Filtered > > --? > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > > ---- > 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 a.gurbo at severen.net Fri Jul 27 11:31:01 2012 From: a.gurbo at severen.net (Alexandr Gurbo) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:31:01 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A1404061581FB@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A1404061581FB@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> Message-ID: <20120727133101.9bbd83c2.a.gurbo@severen.net> > I don?t believe that membership charging scheme should be influenced in any way by the ?IPv4 conservationists?. Member fees are for member services, and nothing else. Yes, the bigger players should contribute *slightly* more, so we can keep the fees competitive for new entrants (more members = better for everyone), and there can be ways to ?encourage? fair play. > Now let?s hear no more of this ?charge-per-IP? nonsense? Great organization, great ip resources, great income... Well, let's for commercial and not commercial organizations with ip addresses up to 1000-2000 for example will not charge a fee. If you need more than 1000-2000 ip addresses, you understand and ready to pay, otherwise you will save you ip resources with strategies nat translation and port forwarding. > > > > Kind regards > > Jamie Stallwood > > > > Jamie Stallwood > > Security Specialist > > Imerja Limited > > > > Tel: 0844 225 2888 > > Mob: 07795 840385 > > Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com > > > > NIC Handle: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE > > > > *Personal opinion disclaimer goes here* > > > > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. > Sent: 27 July 2012 00:12 > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Cc: Nigel Titley > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region > > > > Dear Members, > > Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs. > > > > Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. > a) For free (legacy). > b) This network doesn't have any routes. > > > It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it. > > > > > -- > > 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. > -- Alexandr Gurbo From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Fri Jul 27 12:05:57 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:05:57 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> Message-ID: <50126805.2090003@level7.it> Hi William > WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest > access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they > run NAT now... I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy: 1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the Italian government 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will never implement it so far because: 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 traffic...) 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide dual stack 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem brand, I don't know) 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6 We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6 Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, long time. Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge damage for the whole community. It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying more than big telcos. Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions untouched. Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers???? But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right? Best regards -- 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 ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Fri Jul 27 12:14:39 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:14:39 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <50126805.2090003@level7.it> References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> <50126805.2090003@level7.it> Message-ID: <3FAA922D-80F9-4421-AD7B-3D640530B6F5@edisglobal.com> Dear Paolo, I had a BT line in Italy (Now "Albacom" i think, AS8968) and i am not sure what you mean... We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed (Hell, even multilevel NAT....) I am also not sure what you refer to with the IPv6 problems - Just buy Level3, GBLX, Telecom Italia, Cogent or whatever transit - Why do you need to rely on the local telco? (Is there no Last Line Unbundling in Italy?) Our ISP in Milano does IPv6 over DSL as well (and over FTTH, and in our case to our colocation)..... -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william at edisglobal.com | william at edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 27.07.2012 um 12:05 schrieb Paolo Di Francesco: > Hi William > > >> WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest >> access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they >> run NAT now... > > I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things > clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy: > > 1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for > each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one > company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) > 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of > "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the > Italian government > 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will > never implement it so far because: > 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 > 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if > they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 > traffic...) > 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide > dual stack > 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem > brand, I don't know) > 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6 > > We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: > no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some > years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6 > > Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future > ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, > long time. > > Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it > will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge > damage for the whole community. > > It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying > more than big telcos. > > Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a > commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the > better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions > untouched. > > Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers???? > > But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 > and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the > hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those > two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy > for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration > > As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are > happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration > mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back > to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are > 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right? > > Best regards > > > -- > > > 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 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Jul 27 12:14:21 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:14:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <50126805.2090003@level7.it> References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> <50126805.2090003@level7.it> Message-ID: how about the entire class-e space (244/8 and up) milnet (21,22,26) etc all of which not-announced at all. but better you just switch to v6 :P as for the e-class space, nobody seems to 'claim' it so just use it lol On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > Hi William > > >> WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest >> access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they >> run NAT now... > > I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things > clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy: > > 1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for > each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one > company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) > 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of > "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the > Italian government > 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will > never implement it so far because: > 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 > 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if > they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 > traffic...) > 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide > dual stack > 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem > brand, I don't know) > 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6 > > We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: > no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some > years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6 > > Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future > ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, > long time. > > Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it > will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge > damage for the whole community. > > It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying > more than big telcos. > > Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a > commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the > better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions > untouched. > > Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers???? > > But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 > and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the > hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those > two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy > for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration > > As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are > happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration > mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back > to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are > 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right? > > Best regards > > > -- > > > 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 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 ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Fri Jul 27 12:16:03 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:16:03 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> <50126805.2090003@level7.it> Message-ID: <3EA2D6FA-D1AE-4579-8476-FC20C836BED8@edisglobal.com> Yea.... we all know you are *THE* expert about hijacked space ;-) -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william at edisglobal.com | william at edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 27.07.2012 um 12:14 schrieb Sven Olaf Kamphuis: > how about the entire class-e space (244/8 and up) > > milnet (21,22,26) > > etc > > all of which not-announced at all. > > but better you just switch to v6 :P > > as for the e-class space, nobody seems to 'claim' it so just use it lol > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > >> Hi William >> >> >>> WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest >>> access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they >>> run NAT now... >> >> I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things >> clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy: >> >> 1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for >> each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one >> company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) >> 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of >> "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the >> Italian government >> 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will >> never implement it so far because: >> 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 >> 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if >> they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 >> traffic...) >> 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide >> dual stack >> 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem >> brand, I don't know) >> 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6 >> >> We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: >> no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some >> years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6 >> >> Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future >> ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, >> long time. >> >> Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it >> will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge >> damage for the whole community. >> >> It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying >> more than big telcos. >> >> Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a >> commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the >> better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions >> untouched. >> >> Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers???? >> >> But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 >> and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the >> hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those >> two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy >> for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration >> >> As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are >> happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration >> mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back >> to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are >> 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right? >> >> Best regards >> >> >> -- >> >> >> 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 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. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Fri Jul 27 12:25:22 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:25:22 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl> References: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear?Erik, > I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN > pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : > Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do > the same ... > That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.? ? > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes > into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. > And that pool won't magically grow back above it ...? > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the > above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have > this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...? But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? ? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Fri Jul 27 12:33:23 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:33:23 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <3FAA922D-80F9-4421-AD7B-3D640530B6F5@edisglobal.com> References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> <50126805.2090003@level7.it> <3FAA922D-80F9-4421-AD7B-3D640530B6F5@edisglobal.com> Message-ID: <50126E73.9060705@level7.it> Hi William > Dear Paolo, > > I had a BT line in Italy (Now "Albacom" i think, AS8968) and i am not > sure what you mean... it's the opposite I guess, what was Albacom now it's BT > We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or > Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed > (Hell, even multilevel NAT....) As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" with is quite long to explain. But the law says "one contract = one public IP". Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;) (quite off topic on the list) > > I am also not sure what you refer to with the IPv6 problems - Just buy > Level3, GBLX, Telecom Italia, Cogent or whatever transit - Why do you > need to rely on the local telco? (Is there no Last Line Unbundling in > Italy?) not getting your point sorry :( I have native IPv6 but I cannot connect with Telecom Italia for example, because they do not do IPv6 peering (last time I asked they wanted to tunnel me) Not even sure that Wind or Fastweb are natively peering IPv6 in Italy (at least last time I asked, now I do not have interest considering that their customers will not be IPv6) I was talking of the fact that big operators here will not give dual stack to end users. So yes, I can have my customers on IPv6 but they will never "talk in IPv6" with big-operator-customers > Our ISP in Milano does IPv6 over DSL as well (and over FTTH, and in our > case to our colocation)..... I guess our ISP is not Telecom Italia, Wind, or Fastweb or you have a business contract (i.e. not standard) :) well IPv6 for end users and mobile customers will not happen for a loooong time in Italy if I consider what big Italian operators said so far Obviously, if you pay extra for dual stack IPv6 (i.e. business premium contract) they say they do, but not for home/mobile users. "Not today and not in the near future" this is what they said > > -- > William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh > william at edisglobal.com | william at edis.at > | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net > EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC > Graz, Austria > > Am 27.07.2012 um 12:05 schrieb Paolo Di Francesco: > >> Hi William >> >> >>> WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest >>> access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they >>> run NAT now... >> >> I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things >> clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy: >> >> 1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for >> each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one >> company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) >> 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of >> "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the >> Italian government >> 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will >> never implement it so far because: >> 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 >> 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if >> they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 >> traffic...) >> 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide >> dual stack >> 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem >> brand, I don't know) >> 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6 >> >> We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: >> no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some >> years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6 >> >> Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future >> ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, >> long time. >> >> Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it >> will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge >> damage for the whole community. >> >> It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying >> more than big telcos. >> >> Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a >> commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the >> better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions >> untouched. >> >> Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers???? >> >> But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 >> and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the >> hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those >> two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy >> for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration >> >> As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are >> happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration >> mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back >> to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are >> 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right? >> >> Best regards >> >> >> -- >> >> >> 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 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. > -- 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 Fri Jul 27 12:33:08 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: you go to your CFO -now- and tell them you need new equipment -now- ?!?!?!?! HELLO IPv6 support has been around since the late 1990s. if you didn't get new equipment since then , how are you still in business and not being totally rooted every other day? basically you're saying all your stuff is 16 years old. On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > Dear??Erik, > > > I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a > whole block of 16 bit ASN >> pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their > answer was : > > Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years > already. Everyone should do >> the same ... >> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. > > Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way > for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - > he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You > can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it > doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new > customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra > expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest > money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very > simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.?? > ?? > > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and > out-dated by the time it comes >> into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource > pool is already in the final /8. >> And that pool won't magically grow back above it ...?? > > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where > things should go for the >> above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource > that is gone ... To have >> this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...?? > > But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all > this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get > only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will > provide only IPv6? > ?? > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Jul 27 12:34:32 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:34:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: and yes, by all means, go to your cfo and tell him he is running your company into the wall... preferably at a shareholder meeting :P not having working ipv6 in 2012 is just utter incompetence. On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > Dear??Erik, > > > I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a > whole block of 16 bit ASN >> pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their > answer was : > > Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years > already. Everyone should do >> the same ... >> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. > > Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way > for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - > he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You > can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it > doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new > customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra > expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest > money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very > simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.?? > ?? > > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and > out-dated by the time it comes >> into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource > pool is already in the final /8. >> And that pool won't magically grow back above it ...?? > > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where > things should go for the >> above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource > that is gone ... To have >> this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...?? > > But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all > this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get > only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will > provide only IPv6? > ?? > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Fri Jul 27 12:39:58 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:39:58 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <50126FFE.1090605@level7.it> > Dear Erik, > > > I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 > and a whole block of 16 bit ASN > > pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, > their answer was : > > Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years > already. Everyone should do > > the same ... > > That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. > > Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably > ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need > new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? > All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from > finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? > It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? > NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut > costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will > grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that > chaeper will be migrate to IPv6. I have heard that before, and moreover there is a training cost for sysadmin and tech guys and call center. the point to me is also: who will pay 5 Euros, or 50 Euros for 1 IPv4 when the transition will be completed? I mean, if a customer wants a /24 it's a very good deal: a lot of money for a rare resource But what will happen with those companies that are basing part of their business upon IPv4 address incomes? > > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and > out-dated by the time it comes > > into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the > resource pool is already in the final /8. > > And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... > > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction > where things should go for the > > above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a > resource that is gone ... To have > > this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ... > > But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And > all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs > will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 > when they will provide only IPv6? it seems we are going a little off topic, but not so much: if one ISP will ask for IPv4 and it will be over, in Italy it means that ISP will not be able to connect with most of the Italian (end user generated) traffic. As I said, there is no plan to implement dual stack and the "future proof solution" that has been proposed is IPv4 + NAT. We will go via NAT networks, lovely isn't it? Which in my understanding poses a problem regarding the market: what will be the performances of a customer with pure IPv6 ISP when trying to reach big systems with Italy with ONLY IPv4? -- 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 Fri Jul 27 12:41:35 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: also look at it from the other side: keeping ipv4 around just to have your nodes connect to obsolete stuff run by incompetent other companies, costs the rest of the internet money too. lots of it. (Extra manhours maintaining configurations for ipv4 routing and ipv4 dns) while WE could perfectly do with just ipv6 only. (just that then deutsche telecom goes hudini for our users, to name something ;) google, facebook, etc have all figured it out by now :P people with ipv4 are on the losing end :P (and yes, at some point, we'll just switch it off... and then those with ipv4 only are out of luck :P not implementing ipv6 == deliberately running company into wall. as for arguments to your cfo... what does 'filling out tax forms' bring the company... new customers? surely not... avoid it being raided by the cops and shut down? definately.... same way... ipv6 won't bring you new customers, but it is a requirement to stay around. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB LLTC. ========================================================================= Address: C/O German Embassy of the Republic CyberBunker Koloniestrasse 34 D-13359 Registration: #8 CBTR GERMANIA Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Das Gross Deutsche Reich RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE skype: CB3ROB ========================================================================= SMTP email is depreciated, please upgrade to skype. skype:CB3ROB 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, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > Dear??Erik, > > > I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a > whole block of 16 bit ASN >> pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their > answer was : > > Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years > already. Everyone should do >> the same ... >> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. > > Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way > for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - > he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You > can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it > doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new > customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra > expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest > money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very > simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.?? > ?? > > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and > out-dated by the time it comes >> into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource > pool is already in the final /8. >> And that pool won't magically grow back above it ...?? > > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where > things should go for the >> above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource > that is gone ... To have >> this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...?? > > But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all > this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get > only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will > provide only IPv6? > ?? > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > From president at ukraine.su Fri Jul 27 12:55:30 2012 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:55:30 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: References: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <501273A2.8080209@ukraine.su> 27.07.12 13:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis ???????(??): > and yes, by all means, go to your cfo and tell him he is running your > company into the wall... preferably at a shareholder meeting :P > > not having working ipv6 in 2012 is just utter incompetence. ...and if cfo is wise enough in tech part of company - replied: "yes, having working ipv6 in 2012 is fun, but useless" :) From president at ukraine.su Fri Jul 27 13:20:10 2012 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:20:10 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <50126E73.9060705@level7.it> References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> <50126805.2090003@level7.it> <3FAA922D-80F9-4421-AD7B-3D640530B6F5@edisglobal.com> <50126E73.9060705@level7.it> Message-ID: <5012796A.7080103@ukraine.su> It is a good idea to read that law closely. May be they forget to point what *exactly* static IP should be provided to each contract. If yes - then assigning a static *IPv6* address and NATed private IPv4 is legal enough ;) 27.07.12 13:33, Paolo Di Francesco ???????(??): >> We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or >> Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed >> (Hell, even multilevel NAT....) > > As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some > form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" > with is quite long to explain. > > But the law says "one contract = one public IP". > > Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;) From info at leadertelecom.ru Fri Jul 27 13:27:55 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:27:55 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <50126FFE.1090605@level7.it> References: <50126FFE.1090605@level7.it><67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1343388475.658005.555905697.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear?Paolo, > As I said, there is no plan to implement dual stack and the "future > proof solution" that has been proposed is IPv4 + NAT. We will go via NAT > networks, lovely isn't it? I think it is not only about Italy. As usual customer I don't see IPv6 around me. ISP in our business center doesn't support IPv6. At home i have only IPv4 too.?O yes, IPv6 was installed on some our servers. I can ping Gooooogle. Thats all. No any clients use IPv6. Big telecoms in Russia made some tests and switched back to IPv4.? Does any global telecom support IPv6? I just checked some answers. For example, here I see that custommer report to Vodafone that IPv6 doesn't work. And support tell that it is not problem, while IPv6 is not supported: [1]http://community.vodafone.com.au/t5/Mobile-Broadband/Mobile-Broadband-Ipv4-and-ipv6-connectivity/td-p/119466 "This being said, the IPv6 isn't something that Vodafone currently supports so wouldn't be the cause of your connectivity issue. Your broadband device would only be programmed to run on the original IPv4." --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 27.07.2012 14:40 - Paolo Di Francesco ???????(?): > Dear Erik, > >??> I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 > and a whole block of 16 bit ASN >??> pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, > their answer was : >??> Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years > already. Everyone should do >??> the same ... >??> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. > > Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably > ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need > new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? > All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from > finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? > It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? > NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut > costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will > grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that > chaeper will be migrate to IPv6. I have heard that before, and moreover there is a training cost for sysadmin and tech guys and call center. the point to me is also: who will pay 5 Euros, or 50 Euros for 1 IPv4 when the transition will be completed? I mean, if a customer wants a /24 it's a very good deal: a lot of money for a rare resource But what will happen with those companies that are basing part of their business upon IPv4 address incomes? >??> That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and > out-dated by the time it comes >??> into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the > resource pool is already in the final /8. >??> And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... >??> A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction > where things should go for the >??> above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a > resource that is gone ... To have >??> this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ... > > But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And > all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs > will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 > when they will provide only IPv6? it seems we are going a little off topic, but not so much: if one ISP will ask for IPv4 and it will be over, in Italy it means that ISP will not be able to connect with most of the Italian (end user generated) traffic. As I said, there is no plan to implement dual stack and the "future proof solution" that has been proposed is IPv4 + NAT. We will go via NAT networks, lovely isn't it? Which in my understanding poses a problem regarding the market: what will be the performances of a customer with pure IPv6 ISP when trying to reach big systems with Italy with??ONLY IPv4? -- 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: [2]http://www.level7.it ---- 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: [3]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] http://community.vodafone.com.au/t5/Mobile-Broadband/Mobile-Broadband-Ipv4-and-ipv6-connectivity/td-p/119466 [2] http://www.level7.it [3] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From csvarasdy at shadow.ms.hu Fri Jul 27 12:12:34 2012 From: csvarasdy at shadow.ms.hu (Varasdy Imre Csaba) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:12:34 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <20120727133101.9bbd83c2.a.gurbo@severen.net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A1404061581FB@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> <20120727133101.9bbd83c2.a.gurbo@severen.net> Message-ID: <50126992.7010708@shadow.ms.hu> I totally agree. The current rules - what made by us (members) makes even difficulty (maybe impossible) for the providers to get new IPv4 resources. On the other side, many of big providers/organisations have so much unused IPv4 resource, and even wasting them. For example a big local player gives a /24 for a leased line customer who really needs only fragment ( max of /26). Since we (the small and big players) have one vote per membership, i would to think of changing the rules, on making available of take back the unused resources. Also, the PI allocation should count to the members PA allocation together. Another thing on IPv4: if there is not so much pressure on big providers for changing their access (DSL, cable) networks to IPv6 (because the already have allocated but unassigned space) they will not move quickly. If they must, they will (i bet). If they can save money on giving back IPv4 pools and change to IPv6 (and maybe do NAT for users who not (software)upgrade their CPE to IPv6 compatible) - they can allocate those money for workhours and NAT devices. The resources what got back from those pools, can go back for re-allocation or servers side (so they will not ask also for it). That is my 2 cent. I hope at least smaller operators agree. >> I don?t believe that membership charging scheme should be influenced in any way by the ?IPv4 conservationists?. Member fees are for member services, and nothing else. Yes, the bigger players should contribute *slightly* more, so we can keep the fees competitive for new entrants (more members = better for everyone), and there can be ways to ?encourage? fair play. >> Now let?s hear no more of this ?charge-per-IP? nonsense? > Great organization, great ip resources, great income... > Well, let's for commercial and not commercial organizations with ip addresses up to 1000-2000 for example will not charge a fee. > If you need more than 1000-2000 ip addresses, you understand and ready to pay, otherwise you will save you ip resources with strategies nat translation and port forwarding. > > > -- ?dv?zlettel, Best Regards, ]=============================.signature===================[ Ifj. Varasdy Imre Microsystem-Kecskemet Kft. Wire:36 76 505 910 Wireless Internet Service Division From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Jul 27 14:12:53 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] desperate for ipv4 much? In-Reply-To: <5012796A.7080103@ukraine.su> References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> <50126805.2090003@level7.it> <3FAA922D-80F9-4421-AD7B-3D640530B6F5@edisglobal.com> <50126E73.9060705@level7.it> <5012796A.7080103@ukraine.su> Message-ID: desperate for ipv4 much? anyone that wants to rent some of our PA space is perfectly free to contact us btw... (its not like we cannot assign it to other lirs or their related companies as a customer lol ;) EUR 750/mo per /24 should be just fine, then you get to announce it on your own infrastructure and we take it out of ours. payment condition: per 3 months in advance, 19% vat applies where applicable. (that's only 3 euros per ip per month ;) (just that its listed on everything that spamhaus blackmail operation has in terms of shitlists, but hey, if you feel like it, you can sort it out with them.. (we don't talk to that idiot ;) or just report them to the met police and ICO again for conspiracy to defraud and the uk computer sabotage act (after all that's what it is they're doing ;) just contact sales at cb3rob.net and we'll do what lirs are supposed to do. (assigining it to customers... not keeping it to themselves ;) On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Max Tulyev wrote: > It is a good idea to read that law closely. May be they forget to point what *exactly* static IP should be provided to each contract. If yes - then assigning a static *IPv6* address and NATed private IPv4 is legal enough ;) 27.07.12 13:33, Paolo Di Francesco ???????(??): >> We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or >> Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed >> (Hell, even multilevel NAT....) > > As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some > form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" > with is quite long to explain. > > But the law says "one contract = one public IP". > > Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;) ---- 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 Jul 27 14:23:12 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:23:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: References: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: then just threatten them to get another vendor for -everything- ... quite sure they'll go for the 'ok here you have the 1M licence for free as long as you keep buying 10M/yr in equipment for us' option. also as for CPE, most of that stuff can easily run linux... developers in india could be cheaper than 9889483989 new adsl modems. (so just get your OWN firmware in that case) On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Mark Jones (MK) wrote: > As mentioned before, some vendors still want paying in the order of $?1M for a licence in order to enable the use of IPV6 on their systems/software which can delay the uptake of IPV6. So it's not just a matter of hardware upgrades. > > M. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis > Sent: 27 July 2012 12:11 > To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. > Cc: Erik Bais; members-discuss at ripe.net; Nigel Titley > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region > > you go to your CFO -now- and tell them you need new equipment -now- ?!?!?!?! > > HELLO IPv6 support has been around since the late 1990s. > > if you didn't get new equipment since then , how are you still in business and not being totally rooted every other day? > > basically you're saying all your stuff is 16 years old. > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > >> Dear?Erik, >> >>> I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 >>> and a >> whole block of 16 bit ASN >>> pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, >>> their >> answer was : >> > Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 >> years already. Everyone should do >>> the same ... >>> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. >> >> Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably >> ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you >> need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional >> investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and >> IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run >> IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current >> cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It >> time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in >> word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6. >> ? >> > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and >> out-dated by the time it comes >>> into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the >>> resource >> pool is already in the final /8. >>> And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... >> > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction >> where things should go for the >>> above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a >>> resource >> that is gone ... To have >>> this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ... >> >> But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. >> And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new >> LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support >> IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? >> ? >> -- >> Alexey Ivanov >> LeaderTelecom Ltd. >> > ############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb at talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ############################################################################## From gert at space.net Fri Jul 27 14:26:37 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:26:37 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <20120727122637.GK38127@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 03:11:45AM +0400, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good > for Members and why we have to move to charging?scheme based on count of used > IPs.? > > Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI.?Hewlett-Packard > Company. This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either) > Case 2. Inetnum:?53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI.?Daimler AG. This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either) > Case 3.?Inetnum:?51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?EARLY-REGISTRATION.?UK This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either) > Case 4.?Inetnum:151.3.0.0 -?151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). > EARLY-REGISTRATION.?WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A.? > ? ?a) For free (legacy). This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either) (Are you starting to see a pattern?) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Jul 27 14:27:40 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:27:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: References: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: in either way, hardware that doesn't do ipv6 is a complete writeoff, so its either the 1M license or regard the entire stuff as scrapmetal (or find another way to force them to enable ipv6 on it, such as blackmailing them with buying new equipment elsewhere in the future, which is MORE loss to them than the 1M ;) On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > then just threatten them to get another vendor for -everything- ... > > quite sure they'll go for the 'ok here you have the 1M licence for free as > long as you keep buying 10M/yr in equipment for us' option. > > also as for CPE, most of that stuff can easily run linux... developers in > india could be cheaper than 9889483989 new adsl modems. > > (so just get your OWN firmware in that case) > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Mark Jones (MK) wrote: > >> As mentioned before, some vendors still want paying in the order of $??1M >> for a licence in order to enable the use of IPV6 on their systems/software >> which can delay the uptake of IPV6. So it's not just a matter of hardware >> upgrades. >> >> M. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis >> Sent: 27 July 2012 12:11 >> To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. >> Cc: Erik Bais; members-discuss at ripe.net; Nigel Titley >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 >> networks in RIPE region >> >> you go to your CFO -now- and tell them you need new equipment -now- >> ?!?!?!?! >> >> HELLO IPv6 support has been around since the late 1990s. >> >> if you didn't get new equipment since then , how are you still in business >> and not being totally rooted every other day? >> >> basically you're saying all your stuff is 16 years old. >> >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: >> >>> Dear??Erik, >>> >>>> I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 >>>> and a >>> whole block of 16 bit ASN >>>> pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, >>>> their >>> answer was : >>> > Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 >>> years already. Everyone should do >>>> the same ... >>>> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. >>> >>> Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably >>> ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you >>> need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional >>> investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and >>> IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run >>> IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current >>> cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It >>> time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in >>> word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for >>> companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6. >>> ?? >>> > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and >>> out-dated by the time it comes >>>> into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the >>>> resource >>> pool is already in the final /8. >>>> And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... >>> > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction >>> where things should go for the >>>> above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a >>>> resource >>> that is gone ... To have >>>> this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ... >>> >>> But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. >>> And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new >>> LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support >>> IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? >>> ?? >>> -- >>> Alexey Ivanov >>> LeaderTelecom Ltd. >>> >> ############################################################################## > This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it > ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain > information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this > E-Mail > is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for > delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, > dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly > prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company > makes > no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you > have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk > immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb at talktalkplc.com Please then immediately > delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. > > Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not > necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall > bind the Company in any contract or obligation. > > For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group > PLC > and/or any of its subsidiaries. > > Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com > > TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) > 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR > ############################################################################## From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Jul 27 14:32:37 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:32:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <20120727122637.GK38127@Space.Net> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <20120727122637.GK38127@Space.Net> Message-ID: there is ofcourse an option to have some people that are desperate for ipv4 group up, approach those companies (that american insurance company which holds a /8 as well) and just pay them to manage their ranges (that is, turn them into a profit for the holders and everyone involved). outside of the ripe ncc. just start an external organisation that just rents (flat-fee) or buys those ranges from the original holders, then pimps them out to its members. quite sure mercedes benz doesn't need a /8 themselves :P (daimler ag is their old name btw - they didn't even change it when they renamed it back to mercedes benz ag ;) as corporations seem to like 'whatever makes them money without much work' most of them will probably take the offer. On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 03:11:45AM +0400, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: >> Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good >> for Members and why we have to move to charging?scheme based on count of used >> IPs.? >> >> Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI.?Hewlett-Packard >> Company. > > This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for > any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. > > (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either) > >> Case 2. Inetnum:?53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?ASSIGNED PI.?Daimler AG. > > This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for > any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. > > (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either) > >> Case 3.?Inetnum:?51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs?).?EARLY-REGISTRATION.?UK > > This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for > any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. > > (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either) > >> Case 4.?Inetnum:151.3.0.0 -?151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). >> EARLY-REGISTRATION.?WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A.? >> ? ?a) For free (legacy). > > This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for > any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. > > (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either) > > (Are you starting to see a pattern?) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > ---- > 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 he at uninett.no Fri Jul 27 15:24:51 2012 From: he at uninett.no (Havard Eidnes) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:24:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion In-Reply-To: References: <20120726183454.GA21649@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20120727.152451.156526832.he@uninett.no> >> -No "aging" of resources for category calculation. I've never understood >> what makes a prefix allocated in 1999 different from one allocated in >> 2009 anyway. For IPv6 that would be farcical anyway. > > this benefits early adopters, no doubt. maybe most of people driving > policies are early adopters -- it wouldn't be a surprise for me. > but between 1999 and 2009 there is a difference of 10 years' fees. maybe > this is a "bonus discount" for having paid previous fees and keep using > the space? maybe someone on the list could explain what was the original > rationale/argument for this... One argument could be that this is essentially charging for work the RIPE NCC has to do. Right after an address block is allocated, there will be more work dealing with out-of-window assignment requests, but when most of the address space has been assigned, that activity dies down. Regards, - H?vard From mark.jones at talktalkplc.com Fri Jul 27 14:18:43 2012 From: mark.jones at talktalkplc.com (Mark Jones (MK)) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:18:43 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: References: <67B2C63E-DD5B-4AE8-9C9B-9889BEC13332@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343384722.994852.678257141.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: As mentioned before, some vendors still want paying in the order of $?1M for a licence in order to enable the use of IPV6 on their systems/software which can delay the uptake of IPV6. So it's not just a matter of hardware upgrades. M. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis Sent: 27 July 2012 12:11 To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. Cc: Erik Bais; members-discuss at ripe.net; Nigel Titley Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region you go to your CFO -now- and tell them you need new equipment -now- ?!?!?!?! HELLO IPv6 support has been around since the late 1990s. if you didn't get new equipment since then , how are you still in business and not being totally rooted every other day? basically you're saying all your stuff is 16 years old. On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > Dear?Erik, > > > I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 > > and a > whole block of 16 bit ASN >> pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, >> their > answer was : > > Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 > years already. Everyone should do >> the same ... >> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. > > Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably > ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you > need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional > investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and > IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run > IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current > cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It > time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in > word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6. > ? > > That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and > out-dated by the time it comes >> into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the >> resource > pool is already in the final /8. >> And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... > > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction > where things should go for the >> above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a >> resource > that is gone ... To have >> this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ... > > But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. > And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new > LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support > IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? > ? > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > ############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb at talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ############################################################################## From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Fri Jul 27 17:02:08 2012 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:02:08 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region In-Reply-To: <5012796A.7080103@ukraine.su> References: <1343344304.737360.066842782.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343376753.43603.0898944999.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <02B98756-1A0D-4660-9666-BBFF91DCFFB7@edisglobal.com> <50126805.2090003@level7.it> <3FAA922D-80F9-4421-AD7B-3D640530B6F5@edisglobal.com> <50126E73.9060705@level7.it> <5012796A.7080103@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <5012AD70.3070800@level7.it> Hi Max they say IP not IPv4 or IPv6 so IPv6 is a valid techinque, but you know then if you are "pure public IPv6 address " you still have the problem of reaching IPv4 content on the network. To solve this issue I suggested another point of view which starts from some assumptions: the ITalian traffic is mostly on-net traffic. The assumption can be wrong but most of the traffic (in terms of bytes) comes from: 1) google/youtube/facebook OTT traffic: afaik they natively support IPv6 and usually they are located in Italy (as well as other countries) 2) peer2peer traffic and most of that traffic is done on Italian content (we do not speak english so most of users search for Italian content, which most probably stays on net) 3) content providers: they are Italian content providers (most of them are the same big telcos) Now, my assumption is that if tomorrow morning we wake up and we have: a) end user dual stack (so the stack can decide if it goes on IPv6 or IPv4) b) ITALIAN content providers with dual stack then I think we could easily jump from the current 1-5% to 60% or more of the Italian IPv6 bytes (my personal opinion). The problem stays with the rest of 40% or less of the traffic but in any case the proposed NAT and no IPv6 transition mechanism does not sound like a good idea to me Regards, Paolo > It is a good idea to read that law closely. May be they forget to point > what *exactly* static IP should be provided to each contract. If yes - > then assigning a static *IPv6* address and NATed private IPv4 is legal > enough ;) > > 27.07.12 13:33, Paolo Di Francesco ???????(??): >>> We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or >>> Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed >>> (Hell, even multilevel NAT....) >> >> As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some >> form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" >> with is quite long to explain. >> >> But the law says "one contract = one public IP". >> >> Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;) > > ---- > 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 info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Jul 30 11:00:45 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:00:45 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> Message-ID: <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear Members, ? Do you know that: - Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA space. - Top 20 LIRs pay (membership fee) 0,6% of Total Income. - 88% of LIRs use only 10% Allocated PA space. ? Pareto principle works in our case excellent! Companies which use 3-5 millions Allocated PA addresses pay only 5500 EUR to RIPE. Small LIRs which have 2048 Allocated PA addresses pay 1300 EUR. ? As per current situation RIPE has: - ALLOCATED PA. ? ? ? ? 18K subnets which are 578 millions IPs. - ASSIGNED PI. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?31K subnets which are 110 millions IPs. - EARLY-REGISTRATION. ?3K subnets which are 97 millions IPs ? I?ve made all the necessary calculations and suggest the following proposals/thesises for future Charging Scheme: 1. All PI networks must have sponsoring LIR. 2. It is necessary to calculate the size of LIR by the total count of used PA space and sponsorised PI.? ? As I said about 30% of whole allocated PA space (176 mln PA IPs) use only Top 20 LIRs. Let name them as Group 1. So these LIRs in Group 1 should pay according to the count of used IPs. According to their size they would have discount (amount of payment should be divided into 5). The next Group 2 of LIRs (from 31% to 60% after top) ? it is about 80 other LIRs. Their payment amount will be counted equivalent to each other because they use approximately the same amount of resources (like arithmetic average). ?Their discount would be as payment amount divided into 4. The next Group 3 of LIRs (from 61% to 80%) ? it is about 245 LIRs. They are counted as previous Group 3 but discount is dividing of payment into 3. Group 4 ? it is 583 LIRs. Discount ? into 2. Calculation ? the same. Group 5 ? it is about 6844 LIRs. No discount. Calculation ? the same. So the total cost of member it is a sum of payment for Internet Resources (PA, PI) + fixed fee which is 950?. 950? will stimulate people for IPv6 using. Also this fee includes costs for trainings, meetings and /24 IPv4 for new LIR. ? See below payment amount for PA space for each member of Group: Group 1: Cost from 70k? to 280k?. Group 2: Cost from 16k? to 77k?. Group 3: Cost from 5k? to 22k?. Group 4: Cost from 2,4k? to 7k?. Group 5: Cost from 1k? to 3,8k?. ? Also you will see some overlaps here (like 77k and 70k; 22k and 16k etc.). This is because of discounts (see above). ? And after my full analyzing I consider that it is better for RIPE NCC to stay a non-profit organization. If this Charging Scheme will look like taxable one then we will divide amount members not in just five Groups but in more amount of them (something like ten or so). In this case all members within one Group will pay the same fee.? ? In total the whole sum of payments of LIR will be equivalent of annual Budget of RIPE NCC. ? -- Best regards,? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Jul 30 11:43:12 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:43:12 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl> References: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <1343641392.988208.356793442.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear?Erik, With all do respect for your effort, but this is not making anything easier than the current charging scheme AND it is still assigned resource based.? If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE?s) of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE NCC, like any other support contract you have.? Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for free.? What is main value which RIPE? Assign IPs? Or provide Support? Of course both are very important. But Support - it is a way how to get resource. Regards IPv6 we can charge LIR, for example, 750 EUR for each additional IPv6 network /32.?So in this way we don't need support for assigning IP addresses. What do you think? --? Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lir at lanto.it Mon Jul 30 12:33:26 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:33:26 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <1343641392.988208.356793442.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343641392.988208.356793442.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <501662F6.10902@lanto.it> It is incredible how misleading can be people when does not want to pay. And more they consume, less want to pay. If you consume water, you don't pay support ticket, you pay liters of water. IPs, PI, PA, AS are public resources, and usage of public resources must be paid, proportionally to usage. Less availability there is (like IP v4 addresses), the most you pay. Most of big operators ask to end users something like 6 EUR/month for each public IP, so I don't understand they must have those IP for free. Regards, Tonino Il 30/07/2012 11:43, LeaderTelecom Ltd. ha scritto: > Dear Erik, > > With all do respect for your effort, but this is not making anything > easier than the current charging scheme AND it is still assigned > resource based. > If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE?s) > of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE > NCC, like any other support contract you have. > Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for > free. > > What is main value which RIPE? Assign IPs? Or provide Support? Of > course both are very important. But Support - it is a way how to get > resource. Regards IPv6 we can charge LIR, for example, 750 EUR for > each additional IPv6 network /32. So in this way we don't need support > for assigning IP addresses. > > What do you think? > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > > > ---- > 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 noc at solido.net Mon Jul 30 13:58:16 2012 From: noc at solido.net (=?windows-1252?Q?Henrik_Kramsh=F8j_Solido_NOC_abuse?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:58:16 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <501662F6.10902@lanto.it> References: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343641392.988208.356793442.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <501662F6.10902@lanto.it> Message-ID: <309E95A7-03C5-4C93-AD0B-4CD312F875AD@solido.net> On 30/07/2012, at 12.33, LIR wrote: > It is incredible how misleading can be people when does not want to pay. > And more they consume, less want to pay. What are they consuming, be specific and relate to the budgets for RIPE - RIPE has cost, what is the cost of running RIPE. > > If you consume water, you don't pay support ticket, you pay liters of water. Does not apply, RIPE is not selling water. > > IPs, PI, PA, AS are public resources, and usage of public resources must > be paid, proportionally to usage. Less availability there is (like IP v4 > addresses), the most you pay. and by extension those with 32-bit ASN must pay double? sorry couldn't resist. The rest is serious though. Every time we have this talk people spin out of control. The only way to cut this up, is to go through budget and consider what resources are being spent in RIPE. And certainly IPs are NOT, and SHOULD NOT be thought as something you can pay for. IF we go this route will will end up having a radically different internet, as the big bucks will rule the networks - and only money will rule. Getting a large chunk of IPs is possible if you obey the rules and you get them not because you pay a lot of money. Yes, you MIGHT have a business plan for connecting this, and it costs money. Hopefully those with big chunks overall benefit the internet and makes it possible for others to create content, create services etc. Note also that these big ISPs also have more incentive and spends more on fighting malware, educating users. Not that all ISPs are good (or bad, because there will also be some that MAXIMIZE their own profit) - but without IPs or if they have to pay according to IPs - every year. The public internet will split up in AOL-like clouds, using RFC1918, etc. (Some years ago AOL was kind of like an internet, just not really) > > Most of big operators ask to end users something like 6 EUR/month for > each public IP, so I don't understand they must have those IP for free. PLEASE dont Today as IPv4 is getting scarce we are seeing operators charge even MORE for "public IPs" - which hurt end-to-end and all our protocols badly, and yes multiple layers of NAT is really bad - trust me, or try it. Getting a public IP should IMHO be free for all, in any part of the world - period! IF you charge from RIPE by IPs, or some mumbo-jumbo algorithms calculating the "fair amount" it WILL make more ISPs charge for public IPs. My goal is to keep the internet running without as much control, not as much detail-oriented accounting, not having CFOs going through my IP database again and again to shave off payments to RIPE. The current model suits me, and you are of course welcome to discuss, but can we please try to move the discussion along - repeating the same "large ISPs must pay according to IPs OWNED"-talk is getting very tedious, and it seems there is a lot of objection to using that model. After all I guess we are all techs, and not bean-counters? so work creatively, move the world forward instead, thanks. Best regards Henrik > > Regards, > > Tonino > > > Il 30/07/2012 11:43, LeaderTelecom Ltd. ha scritto: >> Dear Erik, >> >> With all do respect for your effort, but this is not making anything >> easier than the current charging scheme AND it is still assigned >> resource based. >> If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE?s) >> of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE >> NCC, like any other support contract you have. >> Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for >> free. >> >> What is main value which RIPE? Assign IPs? Or provide Support? Of >> course both are very important. But Support - it is a way how to get >> resource. Regards IPv6 we can charge LIR, for example, 750 EUR for >> each additional IPv6 network /32. So in this way we don't need support >> for assigning IP addresses. >> >> What do you think? >> >> -- >> Alexey Ivanov >> LeaderTelecom Ltd. >> >> >> ---- >> 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. -- Henrik Lund Kramsh?j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler From rob.golding at othellotech.net Mon Jul 30 22:12:35 2012 From: rob.golding at othellotech.net (Rob Golding) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:12:35 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <501662F6.10902@lanto.it> References: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl><500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343641392.988208.356793442.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <501662F6.10902@lanto.it> Message-ID: <018901cd6e8f$a91b9bf0$fb52d3d0$@golding@othellotech.net> > If you consume water, you don't pay support ticket, > you pay liters of water. Depends on where you live - that's not the case in all locations or all countries - in the UK most people pay a flat *minimal* fee for their water (mine is ?114/year) no matter how much you "consume" > IPs, PI, PA, AS are public resources In your opinion. > Most of big operators ask to end users something like Connectivity is not the only valid use of IP addresses, all those things you're connecting *to* need them - your "under construction" webpage is on a machine with an ip ... The post office don?t charge for a postcode (necessary to deliver your mail in most countries) and the is a finite number of those - they make their money to pay for the database management of postcode through other services which are *optional*. Rob From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Jul 30 22:40:36 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:40:36 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <018901cd6e8f$a91b9bf0$fb52d3d0$@golding@othellotech.net> References: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl> <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343641392.988208.356793442.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <501662F6.10902@lanto.it> <018901cd6e8f$a91b9bf0$fb52d3d0$@golding@othellotech.net> Message-ID: <20120730204036.GA34866@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 09:12:35PM +0100, Rob Golding wrote: >The post office don???t charge for a postcode (necessary to deliver >your mail in most countries) and the is a finite number of those - they >make their money to pay for the database management of postcode through >other services which are *optional*. I'm not sure I'd want the NCC to sell my address to spamm^Wmarketers, even if that means that membership be free... ;) sncr, Sascha From ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Tue Jul 31 06:52:10 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 06:52:10 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <20120730204036.GA34866@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl> <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343641392.988208.356793442.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <501662F6.10902@lanto.it> <018901cd6e8f$a91b9bf0$fb52d3d0$@golding@othellotech.net> <20120730204036.GA34866@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <47991CC3-F97A-44BC-8828-CA3EFD0525BE@edisglobal.com> Anyone can read it from the DB anyway for free :p -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william at edisglobal.com | william at edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 30.07.2012 um 22:40 schrieb Sascha Luck: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 09:12:35PM +0100, Rob Golding wrote: >> The post office don???t charge for a postcode (necessary to deliver >> your mail in most countries) and the is a finite number of those - they >> make their money to pay for the database management of postcode through >> other services which are *optional*. > > I'm not sure I'd want the NCC to sell my address to spamm^Wmarketers, > even if that means that membership be free... ;) > > sncr, > Sascha > > ---- > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik at datahouse.nl Mon Jul 30 11:27:13 2012 From: erik at datahouse.nl (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:27:13 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl> Hi Alexey, With all do respect for your effort, but this is not making anything easier than the current charging scheme AND it is still assigned resource based. We all know that a minority of the larger LIR?s have a large sum of the current allocated space. But that doesn?t mean that they should also be charged like that according to it. If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE?s) of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE NCC, like any other support contract you have. Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for free. Based on historic assigned IP?s is not the way imho. Regards, Erik Bais From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: maandag 30 juli 2012 11:01 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Cc: Nigel Titley Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. Dear Members, Do you know that: - Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA space. - Top 20 LIRs pay (membership fee) 0,6% of Total Income. - 88% of LIRs use only 10% Allocated PA space. Pareto principle works in our case excellent! Companies which use 3-5 millions Allocated PA addresses pay only 5500 EUR to RIPE. Small LIRs which have 2048 Allocated PA addresses pay 1300 EUR. As per current situation RIPE has: - ALLOCATED PA. 18K subnets which are 578 millions IPs. - ASSIGNED PI. 31K subnets which are 110 millions IPs. - EARLY-REGISTRATION. 3K subnets which are 97 millions IPs I?ve made all the necessary calculations and suggest the following proposals/thesises for future Charging Scheme: 1. All PI networks must have sponsoring LIR. 2. It is necessary to calculate the size of LIR by the total count of used PA space and sponsorised PI. As I said about 30% of whole allocated PA space (176 mln PA IPs) use only Top 20 LIRs. Let name them as Group 1. So these LIRs in Group 1 should pay according to the count of used IPs. According to their size they would have discount (amount of payment should be divided into 5). The next Group 2 of LIRs (from 31% to 60% after top) ? it is about 80 other LIRs. Their payment amount will be counted equivalent to each other because they use approximately the same amount of resources (like arithmetic average). Their discount would be as payment amount divided into 4. The next Group 3 of LIRs (from 61% to 80%) ? it is about 245 LIRs. They are counted as previous Group 3 but discount is dividing of payment into 3. Group 4 ? it is 583 LIRs. Discount ? into 2. Calculation ? the same. Group 5 ? it is about 6844 LIRs. No discount. Calculation ? the same. So the total cost of member it is a sum of payment for Internet Resources (PA, PI) + fixed fee which is 950?. 950? will stimulate people for IPv6 using. Also this fee includes costs for trainings, meetings and /24 IPv4 for new LIR. See below payment amount for PA space for each member of Group: Group 1: Cost from 70k? to 280k?. Group 2: Cost from 16k? to 77k?. Group 3: Cost from 5k? to 22k?. Group 4: Cost from 2,4k? to 7k?. Group 5: Cost from 1k? to 3,8k?. Also you will see some overlaps here (like 77k and 70k; 22k and 16k etc.). This is because of discounts (see above). And after my full analyzing I consider that it is better for RIPE NCC to stay a non-profit organization. If this Charging Scheme will look like taxable one then we will divide amount members not in just five Groups but in more amount of them (something like ten or so). In this case all members within one Group will pay the same fee. In total the whole sum of payments of LIR will be equivalent of annual Budget of RIPE NCC. -- Best regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Tue Jul 31 11:44:16 2012 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:44:16 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl> References: <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl> Message-ID: <46D24CF3-B6F2-4974-8C8C-75B1033E9344@ifom.eu> On Jul 30, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Erik Bais wrote: > If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE?s) of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE NCC, like any other support contract you have. > Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for free. You miss the main point: - If all resources were "unlimited" the entire RIPE activity could be automated and the costs taken close to zero, to give an example the number of level2 domains you can have under a TLD is basically unlimited, and in fact you pay $6/year for a domain - The reason why RIPE needs to exist and do its (outstanding, IMO) work is that there are limited resources, policies to be enforced, assessments to be done, misuse to be prevented: all this is because the resources are limited. I do not need RIPE to process a ticket (give me the power to write directly in the database and I will), I need RIPE to prevent LIRs to abuse exhaustible resources. Thus the real reason why needs to work is because exhaustible resources are about to exhaust. The time required to process an allocation is not due to the one asking for the allocation, is due to the fact that the possible allocations are limited, and thus is MOSTLY due to the resources already allocated to others. A. From awaite at youzee.com Tue Jul 31 12:07:25 2012 From: awaite at youzee.com (Adam Waite) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:07:25 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. In-Reply-To: <5016eaa9.c8cd0e0a.458c.7b66SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <001101cd6e35$80d27290$827757b0$@datahouse.nl> <500EB0A5.80004@titley.com> <1343638845.329366.611725469.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <1343641392.988208.356793442.205243.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <501662F6.10902@lanto.it> <5016eaa9.c8cd0e0a.458c.7b66SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Rob Golding wrote: >> If you consume water, you don't pay support ticket, >> you pay liters of water. > > Depends on where you live - that's not the case in all locations or all countries - in the UK most people pay a flat *minimal* fee for their water (mine is ?114/year) no matter how much you "consume" > That is because the big consumers of water in the UK have succeeded in externalizing their costs onto smaller consumers. And that's exactly what this discussion thread has been about -- trying to force larger consumers of a finite resource to pay in proportion to their consumption.