[members-discuss] Charging Scheme 2025

of course, that the fee per IP will change the price in the market.

if there is no fee and it does not generate any costs then no one moves it. 

it's simple when you pay for something you have to consider whether to pay for the resource or sell it 

 

currently there are more than 15% of completely unused addresses.

and I suppose that another 10% are addresses which, after cleaning up and paying fees, would be redundant or so insignificant that someone would either lease or sell them. 

 

Which may end up on the exchange which will result in a drop in price and better availability for all who need IPv4 addresses 

 

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

Best Regard’s / Pozdrawiam

Gabriel Sulka

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

Firma Handlowo - Usługowa KOMPEX

34-400 Nowy Targ ul. Szaflarska 62A

tel(18) 264-60-55 pn-pt 09:30 - 17:00 sb. 09:30 - 13:00

www.kompex.pl ; bok at kompex.pl ; kompex at nowytarg.net

 

From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Daniel Pearson
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:44 PM
To: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging Scheme 2025

 

IPv4 sells in the private market for anywhere from $40-$50 per address.

 

When a /24 is worth $10,000~

When a /22 is worth $40,000~
When a /20 is worth $162,000~

Do you really think you will motivate someone to give them up by charging 0.1 EUR per address?

That's just a fantasy. 

 

On 4/10/24 8:34 AM, Mihail Fedorov wrote:

Hello. 

 

Because it solves both purposes

 

- some small motivation for unused “hoarded” IP address space to be distributed back to those who suffer from total lack of them - at least a little bit will go back to market. There are still really A LOT of entities who hoard them not for the purpose of need (now or in future, commercial or not), but ONLY because some time ago v4 distribution was not managed properly. This, per my opinion, should be somehow resolved.

 

- small LIR’s without large clients or subnets should not fund RIPE expensive projects on equal basis with transcontinental corporations. Latter will easily agree on 100x price increase just to knock off anyone else - still not even notice this fee. But existing fee and its increase is more than significant for smaller networks or someone trying to enter market.

 

What I see in proposed schemes is total lack of choice. Let’s not pretend that increase to 1800, increase 1850 or increase to 1900 is actually a choice. It is not! And what I see in this mailing list is that almost everyone agree with this fact.

 

My initial proposal remains the same: 0.1 EUR (adjusted to real RIPE financial needs) per v4 address in use. Absolutely flat and fair. It will be eventually distributed up to the IP end user by supply chain and be totally unnoticeable for them.

 

At least there should be couple of more options in vote if community opinion really counted. Otherwise vote is nonsense, why it is needed at all?

 





On 10 Apr 2024, at 16:09, Евгений Удовихин  <mailto:eudovihin at gmail.com> <eudovihin at gmail.com> wrote:

 

At least because large IP holders now have no motivation to release them. The dependence of the contribution on the number of addresses used will give an additional incentive not to keep unnecessary address space.

 

Ср, 10 апр. 2024 г. в 22:59, Michel Lanners <michel.lanners at lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners at lu-cix.lu> >:

Dear all, 

 

Why on earth is everybody trying to monetize IPv4, i.e. make RIPE fees dependant on IPv4 ressources?

 

I completely fail to see why anybody should pay more for HOLDING any number of IPv4 ressources (or other ressources, by the way).

 

It’s a different story for ressource transfers. So let those selling IPv4 pay a fee for the transfer! 

 

And for the rest let’s stick to a real membership fee: one price irrespective of which services you use or not. The fitness center doesn’t charge you per minute, nor per device you use. It's a flat membership, full stop. Hopefully low enough so it doesn’t create a problem for anybody's bottom line.

 

Cheers

 

Michel LANNERS

CIO at LU-CIX Management G.I.E.

--

 <https://www.luxchat.lu/> 

Mail: michel.lanners at lu-cix.lu <mailto:michel.lanners at lu-cix.lu> 

Luxchat: @3eb2pdflrq57:01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu <http://01.lu-cix.luxchat.lu/> 

Phone: (+352) 28 99 29 92-81

  

LU-CIX Management G.I.E.

202, Z.A.E. Wolser F <https://www.google.com/maps/search/202,+Z.A.E.+Wolser+F?entry=gmail&source=g> 

L-3290 Bettembourg

lu-cix.lu <https://www.lu-cix.lu/> 

luxchat.lu <https://www.luxchat.lu/> 

luxembourg-internet-days.com <https://luxembourg-internet-days.com/> 

lunog.lu <https://www.lunog.lu/> 

 

_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/eudovihin%40gmail.com

_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
 <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> members-discuss at ripe.net
 <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe:  <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mihail%40fedorov.net

 





_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240410/448f7967/attachment.html>