[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

Hi,

>Personally, I think charging for number of IPv4 held is not the right way to 
>go about it.

But I do. I am a relatively new LIR (only 3 years membership) and have one of 
the last /22. Even in a membership and non-profit schema it is possible to 
design usage based billing procedure (some other same type organisations does 
this as well).
And yes, definitively there is a different value you get based on the amount 
of ip allocations you have assigned to your LIR because you make in the end 
either money directly out of it (for example for server hosting companys) or 
indirectly. And the one who have more resources can sell more service and 
utilize them other more. And in the market there is a value/cost arround each 
/24 currently very high.
We should setup a policy that dissallow selling ip space on the normal market. 
Only RIPE should be the one managing this and giving resources to members and 
also getting them back from them.
A usage based member ship fee would be fair for every members and solve a lot 
of issues we currently have. And as the member fee will be discussed and 
approved every year there is already for next year the chance to change it 
this way.

>I think it would be better to more regularly scan allocated resources and 
>re-claim those which are not actively in use.

Theoretically this sounds a good idea. I have personally not used my full /22 
yet, but at least one address in any of them. But if an allocated resource is 
used or not can not always be found out externally. THere can be regstriected 
acess with no direct  routing. Usage of ip's only internally and many more. I 
don't think there should be any control for already assigned resources (this 
is different when requesting new resources) as a different charging scheme 
would automatically bring LIR's to a better management of the allocations and 
they will give back resources by themself. If a company really require the 
resources for future expansion there should be no need for them to give it 
back (but for sure they will have to pay the member fee for it)

> I'd also hope that everyone taking the time to participate in this 
> discussion has already rolled out IPv6 alongside their IPv4.

I personally have, but this depends on the requirements of LIRs and their 
customer. If they only host applications that right now doesnt support IPv6 
then there is no really need to deploy it already now. But in general I agree 
that everything should be deployed in dual stack as soon as possible till a 
switch-over can be made or even better if for isolated controlled use v6 only 
can be utilized.

> If everyone is waiting for others to deploy then we're going to get nowhere.

Agree.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5508 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20190118/2cf26b7b/attachment.p7s>