[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

No offense,
Jon Postel has run the registry from a paper sheet in this days, you should read about him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel

And it was a very bright idea, so they wouldn’t have to make some up. 
This all sounds like envy, why being jealous about a resource assigned more than twenty years ago?
Point is, everybody knows about the upcoming shortage for 10+ years. We could charge for announced IPs, this would drive the usage down, but lead to more highjacked IP space. We could pay years of free RIPE membership to LIRs returning space, but they could also sell it.

Think more about how it could be steered, not how to tell somebody else “you don’t need it, give it to me”.
Otherwise you run into the “the amateur radio is crap, the military is crap, the large universities are all crap networks and so on ….”-discussion.

Who needs more IPv4 space right now? End user networks deploying more dual stack or even IPv4 only networks? Sorry this times are over. whatever you do, you can only delay the inevitable another month or two.

Matthias

> On 21 Sep 2016, at 21:30, Network Engineers <NetEng at audiencescience.com> wrote:
> 
> I’d love to meet the guy who thought that giving an entire /8 to amateur radio enthusiasts was a good idea.  They even carved out an entire /16 of that range for a “testing subnet”.  How cute and disgustingly unnecessary.
> 
> 
> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Academia NOC <noc at academia.co.uk>
> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 12:11 PM
> To: Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il>
> Cc: "members-discuss at ripe.net" <members-discuss at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
> 
> I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections.
> 
> I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now.
> 
> We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space.
> 
> What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation.
> 
> I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest.
> 
> Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
> 
> 
> 
> G
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Graham Stewart
> Senior Solutions Architect
> Network Operation Centre
> Academia Ltd. (AS47704)
> 
> P. +44 (0)1992 703 900
> 
> E&OE
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016, at 19:21, Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
> 
>> On 21/09/2016 15:46, Muntasir.Ali at newham.gov.uk wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged.  This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described.  Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6 services on our networks.  If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation.  If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if we have no IPv4 registered, we don't get charged anything?  We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members.  Even though we are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community.
>>> 
>> 
>> Speaking also as a non-profit, academic LIR with legacy IPv4 address
>> space, I too would be opposed to any charging model whereby the legacy
>> address space was billed based on size.  I moved all our address space
>> to within RIPE and thereby pay an additional 450 Euro on top of the 1400
>> Euro membership fee (50 Euro x 9).  I consider that fair.
>> 
>> One has to understand that legacy holders are a minority.  The vast
>> majority of LIRs are newcomers.  This vast majority can one day wake up
>> and vote to charge all legacy holders a 10,000Euro fee per object -
>> simply because they can.  Their fee would go down a bit and legacy
>> holders would either have to leave with their objects or pay through the
>> nose.  As in any democracy,  there are checks and balances such that the
>> executive branch would have to veto any such proposal.  Hopefully.
>> 
>> -Hank
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> 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/
>> 
>> 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/
> 
> 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: 3701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160921/244b3e8e/attachment.p7s>