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

Hi,
(happy to see someone else from my country voice their views, even if i 
don't share them at all)


On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Teotonio Ricardo wrote:

> Regarding this discussion, here is my suggestions about what i think that can be done:
> 
>  - Disallow LIRs to profit from IPv4 Transfers. If they aren't using resources, they should return them, not making
> money of them in a "black market".

Afaik, there isn't a "black market". What RIPE (and the RIPE/NCC) did 
during the last years was to document the transfers, and list 
"intermediaries", so that any transfer could be as transparent/traceable 
as possible.
When i started following this community, IP addresses were not "assets", 
but with the shortage, they have become assets, and nobody could do 
anything against that.


> IPv4 Resources are owned by the community, not by a single LIR.

That's not entirely true. "Legacy" space isn't "owned" by the community.


> No one should be able to create a market of these.

National (and regional) authorities usually (sometimes...) have the power 
to stop the creation of markets, or their development. We as a 
community... don't have that ability.


> If they're selling, i'm pretty sure they don't need them, because the 
> ones who really need, will not be selling them at any cost.
> 
> - Start to allocate a minimum of /24 instead of /22 to new LIRs and 
> allow them to get up to /22 in the first two years if they need. (A /24 
> each 6 months for example)

Deaggregation is already as bad as it is. While a LIR's /22 can be 
operationally used as 4 /24s, this is a bad idea anyway, because it 
encourages more deaggregation.
We also need to understand that LIRs which are not exposed to the full 
routing table's size will never worry about deaggregation ;-)


> - Start charging by size of IPv4 allocation (setting a minimum and a 
> maximum each year);

Strongly against this. The cost we all support to run the RIPE/NCC is 
based on the workload the RIPE/NCC needs to handle, not allocation sizes. 
People don't pay an yearly fee so that global assets are (retroactively) 
fairly distributed, fees are paid to cover services' cost.


> - Use the excessive money made from Annual Membership Fees to fund IPv6 
> Workshops, IPv6 implementation in opensource projects and internet 
> protocols, IPv6 Marketing material for ISPs, Datacenters, Webhosting 
> companies, Universities and end-users, etc.

Non-service related costs are already high enough :-)
At this point we need to recognize what RIPE/NCC (and RIPE who mandated 
RIPE/NCC to do so) have been doing for more than a decade to promote IPv6 
usage.


> - Reduce the Annual Membership Fee, compensate or even pay something to 
> LIRs (using the excessive money - see above) that return their unused 
> Resource Allocations. I'm pretty sure 99% of LIRs who have big unused 
> resource allocations, will not make any move if they don't win something 
> in return.

It's a risk issue and a market issue. If you think there is a possibility 
your business will grow, you will hang on to your assets, because you 
can't predict their price in the future. Even if you won't have usage for 
them, you can keep it for some years more and make more money at that 
point in time...


> We need to give a boost to IPv6,

Yes, sure. But we also need to recognize it will happen at different 
speeds, according to each networks' context.


> but we all know that most of the big 
> ISPs have previously been gathering more IPv4 allocations than they 
> needed in order to take advantage of the future limitations that would 
> occur, putting IPv6 implementation in second place.

If big ISPs did that, it's because they did come up with plans in order to 
get the allocations, or they did went to the market when they thought it 
was business-wise for them.


> If they start being charged by allocation, they will think about 
> returning resources they aren't using and prioritize implementation of 
> IPv6. In my opinion, as a community member, LIRs should have the 
> allocations they need, not the allocations they want.

Seriously, the line was crossed and the "returning resources" concept was 
dead and buried.
Like any buildings/real estate ownership, if you can't support the 
maintenance cost you sell your estate and minimize your losses, you just 
don't offer anything to charity/common good... ;-)


Best Regards,
Carlos Friaças
(pt.rccn)


> (Sorry for any grammatical or syntax error.)
> 
> Best regards,
> TEOTÓNIO RICARDO: Technical Support & Account Manager @ WebTuga, Lda.
> blog: blog.webtuga.pt - web: www.webtuga.pt - area de clientes: clientes.webtuga.pt
> twitter: @webtugahosting - facebook: fb.me/webtugahostingfb
> WebTuga - Soluções de Alojamento Cloud
> 
> 2016-09-22 22:51 GMT+01:00 Carlos Friacas <cfriacas at fccn.pt>:
> 
>
>       Hi Martin, All,
> 
>
>       On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
>
>             On 22/09/16 20:58, Carlos Friacas wrote:
>
>                    Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong
>                    messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4
>                    addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent
>                    from their current (or future) IP service providers.
>
>                    Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of
>                    IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-(
>
>                    In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders,
>                    and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering
>                    processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space
>                    our your own PA space... ;-)
> 
>
>             More backwards thinking.
> 
>
>       Nahhhhh, just a glimpse of local, daily, reality. :-))
> 
>
>             Those Governments should have pushed for a migration to IPv6 instead of looking for small
>             crumbs and acting as a forerunner.
> 
>
>       At some extent, several governments over the years have funded sectorial-driven deployments :-)
> 
>
>             Then use the crumbs for NATPT bridging them to the parts of the Internet, that don't use v6
>             yet.
> 
>
>       You mean, the large majority... ;-)
> 
>
>             It would also pushed the suppliers in the right direction then.
> 
>
>       I would say that suppliers aren't being pushed enough, even today... ;-(
> 
>
>       Regards,
>       Carlos
> 
>
>             Kind regards,
>             Martin List-Petersen
>             --
>             Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair
>             http://www.airwire.ie
>             Phone: 091-865 968
>             Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
> 
> 
>
>       ----
>       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.
> 
> 
> 
>