[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [cs] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Thu Sep 22 22:44:56 CEST 2016
Hi, (please see inline) On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Academia NOC wrote: > 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. "for the good of the internet"? That line was crossed when markets were enabled...... > 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'. Do you mean "sell" or "lease"? > 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. You might want to look again what "Legacy" means. RIPE (through the RIPE/NCC) might reach a point where it can stop providing services to "legacy space". If that happens, the next question is where will "legacy space holders" get service from... > We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the > unused space or return it. "We" can't really decide on how legacy resource holders use their address space. "We" can only decide how services are available (or not)... > 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. "Legacy resource holders" manage their businesses, "LIRs with limited resources" also manage their businesses. Neither of these categories seems to be a charity... :-) > Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements > and return unused space. You might want to check the "legacy" definition again. :-)) > What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni > need a /16 for? No idea. Would expect who is managing them to know :-) > 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. Different people have different views about NAT! :-) Go ask LEAs if they prefer 1 IP per device or NATs...? ;-) > 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. And they can grow their current operational model if they wish, because they have the addresses to do it. > If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and > returned the rest. It's a risk management issue. What if in 2 years time they would need another /23? How much would they pay for it? > Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders "Amnesty", as in a pardon for having requested and received IPv4 address space before even the RIPE/NCC (and other RIRs) were created? Sounds really weird to me... > where if they return 50% of their space People are getting money for their IPv4 assets (or usage rights, or something...), so the concept of "returning" sounds a bit like a romantic idea :-) > or more they can stay on the current charging scheme Please keep in mind legacy resource holders are getting services from the RIPE/NCC. If they stop receiving those services, they won't stop being holders/owners of their space...... > but if they continue to hoard they are penalised? How do you "hoard" something which is your property? :-) Regards, Carlos > 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. > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [cs] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]