[members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Pearson
daniel at privatesystems.net
Tue Apr 16 16:33:48 CEST 2024
Everybody is still fighting about the wrong question. The question everyone should be arguing about is why it costs 40 million a year to run an internet registry for 20,000~ members. Sure, the bulk of the expense is due to navigating the legal landscape of multiple member nations, but you can't tell me that's 20-30 million a year in legal fee's. On 4/16/24 9:31 AM, Petru Bunea wrote: > Where have I said it should be 1 EUR across the board? > > It doesn’t have to be 1 EUR, but it also doesn’t have to be 333 the > difference. It can be progressively cheaper, but not at such a large > difference. > > Also, FYI, UK Gov or any Gov, could always put back IPv4 if they find > it to be too expensive. Just like they force people and companies to > put back on the market real estate that have a very high yearly tax. > How would that work out for a change? Call this a tax hike on public > property, like IP addresses. Maybe they would in fact like it, since > it’s their way of doing business. > > Otherwise, with this model, we will just move the burden from the big > ISP/companies/resource holders to the smaller ones. > > Thanks. > >> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:25, Daniel Pearson <daniel at privatesystems.net> >> wrote: >> >> I'd like to see you tell the UK Government that they are going to pay >> 1 Euro per IP for a /8 >> >> Let me know how that conversation goes :) >> >> >> >> On 4/16/24 9:20 AM, Petru Bunea wrote: >>> This is NOT a good example. In this example we see how a /22 >>> allocation pays 1094 EUR per year, which is close to 1 EUR / 1 IP / >>> Year, and a /8 allocation pays 48.000 EUR, which is 0.003 EURO / 1 >>> IP / Year, which is 333 times less expensive. So tell me again how >>> this is a good example. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>>> On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:07, Firma KOMPEX <gabi at kompex.pl> wrote: >>>> >>>> very good example Sebastian >>>> >>>> Others are doing it and Europe should too >>>> >>>> We should be pioneers and we are in the Middle Ages. >>>> We are chipping away at such obvious issues from others. >>>> >>>> The fixed fee for the LIR Account + the resource fee can stay >>>> they need to be calculated >>>> >>>> But necessarily, as you pointed out, IP usage should be accounted for >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 <http://www.kompex.pl/>;bok at kompex.pl;kompex at nowytarg.net >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of >>>> Sebastien Brossier >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:51 PM >>>> To:members-discuss at ripe.net >>>> Subject: [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic) >>>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I propose to add the following model to the charging scheme 2025 voting >>>> options. >>>> >>>> >>>> *1 - Introduction:* >>>> >>>> This charging scheme is heavily inspired by APNIC. If you are not >>>> familiar with this, you can see an example here: >>>> https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/apnic-membership/how-much-does-it-cost/member-f >>>> ees-calculator/ >>>> >>>> The main idea is that each LIR pays according to its resources, but not >>>> linearly. You don't pay twice as much because you have twice as much >>>> resources. >>>> The resulting fees are similar to what the other RIRs are charging, >>>> with >>>> infinite granularity (no categories). >>>> >>>> It can be easily tweaked to reach any desired budget, and will remain >>>> viable when IPv4 has disappeared. >>>> >>>> I have made IPv6 less punitive compared to APNIC, because RIPE has >>>> larger initial allocations. >>>> >>>> Independent resources fees, sign-up fee, lack of ASN fee, remain as >>>> before in this proposal. I believe it is better to have a separate >>>> debate on these subjects at a later time. >>>> >>>> The goal of this charging scheme is to lower the cost for members >>>> with a >>>> very low amount of resources, in order to attract newcomers and retain >>>> existing members. This way the RIPE NCC membership will remain numerous >>>> and diverse. >>>> >>>> >>>> *2 - Charging scheme:* >>>> >>>> (Warning: math incoming !) >>>> >>>> IPv4_count = number of IPv4 addresses allocated >>>> (excluding independent assignments and legacy) >>>> IPv6_count = number of IPv6 /56 subnets allocated >>>> (excluding independent assignments) >>>> >>>> Base_Fee = 638 EUR >>>> Bit_Factor = 1.31 >>>> Minimum_Fee = 500 EUR >>>> Offset_IPv4 = 8 >>>> Offset_IPv6 = 24 >>>> >>>> IPv4_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv4_count) - Offset_IPv4) >>>> IPv6_Fee = Base_Fee * Bit_Factor^(log2(IPv6_count) - Offset_IPv6) >>>> >>>> Fee = max(IPv4_Fee, IPv6_Fee, Minimum_Fee) >>>> + 50 EUR per independent resource (excluding ASN) >>>> >>>> My simulation, based on public data (2024-03-28), results in an average >>>> fee of 1900 EUR per LIR (+ 50 EUR per independent resource), so it >>>> should provide the same budget as the other options. >>>> If RIPE NCC find different results with their simulation, they can >>>> adjust Base_Fee. >>>> >>>> >>>> *3 - Examples:* >>>> >>>> 50 EUR per independent resource should be added to all these fees. >>>> >>>> No allocations: 500 EUR >>>> IPv4 /24 and/or IPv6 /32: 638 EUR >>>> IPv4 /23 and/or IPv6 /31: 835 EUR >>>> IPv4 /22 and/or IPv6 /30:1094 EUR >>>> IPv4 /21 and/or IPv6 /29:1434 EUR >>>> IPv4 /20 and/or IPv6 /28:1878 EUR >>>> IPv4 /19 and/or IPv6 /27:2461 EUR >>>> IPv4 /18 and/or IPv6 /26:3224 EUR >>>> IPv4 /17 and/or IPv6 /25:4223 EUR >>>> IPv4 /16 and/or IPv6 /24:5533 EUR >>>> IPv4 /15 and/or IPv6 /23:7248 EUR >>>> IPv4 /14 and/or IPv6 /22:9495 EUR >>>> IPv4 /13 and/or IPv6 /21:12439 EUR >>>> IPv4 /12 and/or IPv6 /20:16295 EUR >>>> IPv4 /11 and/or IPv6 /19:21347 EUR >>>> IPv4 /10 and/or IPv6 /18:27965 EUR >>>> IPv4 /9 and/or IPv6 /17:36634 EUR >>>> IPv4 /8 and/or IPv6 /16:47991 EUR >>>> >>>> Largest LIR is just below 60 kEUR. >>>> >>>> There are no categories, so your fee can be somewhere between these >>>> numbers. >>>> >>>> If you think the fees are too high, I invite you to read the fee >>>> schedule of the other RIRs. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you if you've read this far. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Sebastien Brossier >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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/gabi%40kompex.pl >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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/suport%40bunea.eu >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/daniel%40privatesystems.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/suport%40bunea.eu > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240416/0896c600/attachment-0001.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]