[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Newton
paul.newton at f4rn.org.uk
Sat Apr 13 14:26:20 CEST 2024
And training credits to be given in a form redeemable for cash if not used .... On Sat, 13 Apr 2024, 12:23 ivaylo, <ivaylo at bglans.net> wrote: > > Hello Kai > > >> Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members > > > > Says who? > > From IANA documents signed and agreed from RIPE: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested > parties, and particularly the LIRs > > All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be > treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented > by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and > impartial treatment of the members/requestors. > > The new RIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit > and open membership association. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This pont 4. is a constitution about the RIRs. In the light of equal > membership fees and equal rights leads to equal (fair) resource > distribution to _ALL_ members/requestors no matter their wish or > interests ! All RIPE policies and guidelines contrary to this point 4 > implemented during the years can be treated as invalid. I am prety sure > the RIPE NCC board are inteligent, respectable , with high sense of > responsibility people and will agree with me. They offer flat > charging scheme because we (members) want such, so we go with it and with > all consequences wich it will lead. If we (members) agree on something > else they (The NCC board) will offer it to vote, and if is accepted we go > with it and with all its consequences again. > > > >> Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged, > > > > How/why that? > > How: Automatic, IRR+ROA of the moved block will not be keep same. Login in > your LIR panel account and search the functions you have. > Why: To prevent disruption in the work of the donor LIR until/if > agreement between 2 LIRs is reached. Even in the first 3 months > after the redistribution, delete/change of these object should > be disabled, after that period the Receiving LIR have rights to > modify the objects. > > > >> We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN > delegated > >> to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN > , > >> Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope. > > > > There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC? > > > No ! Delegated 16 bit ASNs to RIPE NCC are 25029 source: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml > > > > > I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 > equivalent, > > any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the > holding > > LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all > > current activities unchanged. > > > I Partitialy agree. /48 IPV6 do not match /24 IPV4 equivalent in many > cases (access operators), There are no exact equivalent, but more close, > comfort to work and scalable network logic with current technical > documents and solutions is /32 IPV6 to /24 IPV4 (if you need deeper > technical explain write me outside of the mail list). > > I agree the charging scheme base on /24 IPV4 block, but to prevent GRT > (Global Routing Table) prefixes increase and big deagregation, better is > on /22 to /18 IPV4 blocks. The results will be same in case of flat ladder > up scheme (most fair to all). If we go exponential decreasing up, then we > should choise smaller block size as a base. > > Again from the IANA documents: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml > > To RIPE NCC are allocated 35 x /8 IPV4 BLOCKs and 7 x /8 legacy . Some of > this space is transfered outside of RIPE / returned to IANA, but to know > exact numbers must do querries (2752512) for each /24 or somebody of the > RIPE staff to give exact number. When we have this information and with > target budget of 42M (I prefer the budget to be 60M-65M, with standart > method of over colleted redistribution for the next year. Also we can > push for budget reduction and to vote wich projects to support and wich > not) we will be able to do much more precise calculations. > > > > Ivaylo Josifov > VarnaIX / Varteh LTD > +359 52 969393 > Varna, Bulgaria > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, Kai Siering via members-discuss wrote: > > > Moin, > > > > am 12.04.24 um 20:17 schrieb ivaylo: > >> > >> Flat equal fee for all members = Flat equal resource for all members > > > > Says who? > > > >> Because IRR and ROA records will be keep unchanged, > > > > How/why that? > > > >> We must do it equal to all on 100%. with 21570 LIRs and 25029 ASN > delegated > >> to RIPE from IANA, we will be fine, each member can hold 1 x 16bit ASN > , > >> Also there is enough for the IXPs I hope. > > > > There are 21570 16 bit ASNs delegated to the NCC? > > > >> Finally If you dont like such fair/equal scenario (RIPE NCC will be > obliged > >> to apply it with flat equal fee for all LIRs = flat equal resource > spread > >> to all LIRs), > > > > First of all, I see no legal reason for your claim, the NCC would have > to > > distribute the it's available resources equally among its members. Other > RIRs > > don't either, and it makes no sense to e. g. force an /16 v4 on us if > we're > > happy with an /22. Needs-based distribution, the current modus operandi, > does > > make much more sense. > > > >> a fair and long term sustainable fee scheme for at least the next 10 > years > >> wich will cover the RIPE NCC budget and guarantee predictable and > stable > >> bussiness climate to ALL ! > > > > I voiced for a simple resource based fee scheme ? bill any /24 > equivalent, > > any /48 equivalent, and any ASN that is managed by RIPE NCC to the > holding > > LIR ? in 2023. And I still don't think the RIPE NCC should continue all > > current activities unchanged. > > > > Having looked at the schemes of other RIRs, maybe some inverse > exponential > > function makes more sense than simply count an /8 equivalent as 65536 > times > > /24. But I'd still prefer a straight formula instead of categories. And > a > > member's vote on any and all activity starting with FY 2025. > > > > Regards, > > -kai > > > > -- > > Kai Siering > > Senior System Engineer > > > > mail.de GmbH > > M?nsterstra?e 3 > > D-33330 G?tersloh > > > > Tel.: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 986 > > Fax: +49 (0) 5241 / 74 34 987 > > E-Mail: k.siering at team.mail.de > > Web: https://mail.de/ > > > > Gesch?ftsf?hrender Gesellschafter: > > Fabian Bock > > > > Sitz der Gesellschaft Nordhastedt > > Handelsregister Pinneberg HRB 8007 PI > > Steuernummer 18 293 20020 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > members-discuss mailing list > > members-discuss at ripe.net > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ivaylo%40bglans.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/paul.newton%40f4rn.org.uk > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240413/382070be/attachment-0001.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]