<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I agree with Lu and I think everyone is
missing the point and Lu made a very valid post. <br>
<br>
If you shift the burden of cost from where it is effectively
'equal' based on per LIR, to based on IP consumption. Small LIR's
with say just the single /22 would be paying a couple hundred euro
per year. RIPE is <b>not a for-profit business</b>. It is there
to provide services, and cover the costs of those services which
in the whole grand scheme of things is a big fat phone book of who
has what IP space. Nothing more, nothing less. You can't expect
RIPE, ARIN or any other RIR to try and use money as a leverage
point to force IPV6, they just don't have that kind of power. Do
you really believe that if they tried something like that, they
wouldn't be sued into the stoneage? Why do you think legacy IP
space still exists, because contracts had been formed and signed
giving ownership of those blocks to the purchaser prior to the
RIR's existence and the RIR's don't have a legal leg to stand on
to get that back. <br>
<br>
Everyone just needs to keep in mind what a RIR really is, respect
that, and go on with life, and not try and make it something it
isn't or can't become. <br>
<br>
Daniel~<br>
<br>
On 09/14/2016 05:04 AM, Lu Heng wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAvCx3ivfDBu1kGW+6jS9DZDx_Zin9k4o8tQSv=+K9zurWMMGQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the current fee are really low enough to a point
even intensive some abuse of the policy in which was heavily
debated both in policy discussion and member discussion for
past years.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we start asking big one paying 5000 euro a year(in which
I don't think they would care), then unless RIPE tomorrow
start spending 100 million a year, we will have to charge
small one with 1000 IP around 200 Euro or 500 Euro a
year...image the situation then.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We will effectively finish the last /8 in a second.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We have to asks for the great management of RIPE NCC, for
the amount of work they have done for the amount of member,
they are very good value for the money:)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In a large picture, the cost to run RIPE NCC are really
fiction of what's the total value of the IP address, so there
is no way financial incentive in fees would change anything.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My 2 cent.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With regards.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Lu</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Paul
Webb <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk"
target="_blank">Paul.Webb@clearstreamgroup.co.uk</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Good
points Chris and I'd have to agree. The large LIR's (who
gained their large and largely unused IPv4 resources many
years ago at no cost) have many reasons not to prioritise
IPv6, so they aren't doing so.<br>
<br>
Certainly RIPE, but organisations such as the IX's, could
also start making IPv4 more expensive and help the migration
and I'd argue they should be. Sadly the larger LIR's have a
disproportionate influence in all the important places,
which doesn't help.<br>
<br>
I'd agree there are may be pinch points in many networks
where, for example, even *slightly* older routers have lower
throughput with IPv6 (we've CISCO's that route IPv4 in
hardware and IPv6 in software for example) and I guess that
stuff has to be assessed and worked though still in many
networks.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: members-discuss [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net">members-discuss-<wbr>bounces@ripe.net</a>]
On Behalf Of Chris Smith<br>
Sent: 13 September 2016 20:57<br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on
RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
"How you calculate these costs would of course depend on
a number of different factors and I can see different
members proposing things to their own benefit (and
therefore the detriment of others) without reference to
a single �goal�."<br>
<br>
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4
resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's
with small IPv4 resources.<br>
The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup
with this in mind.<br>
When it comes to IPv6 it's irrelevant, and perhaps a
single pricing model would be more appropriate in this
case.<br>
<br>
Trying to stay impartial (impossible but...), how about:<br>
<br>
Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?<br>
<br>
I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term
interest.<br>
I'd like to see some form of IPv4 switch off target date
set and a financial incentive model to encourage full
deployment.<br>
Increasing costs for IPv4's in a disproportionate way,
and artificially making IPv6 ready networks lower cost
should do it?<br>
<br>
My take on this would therefore be to have a notional
membership cost say 1 euro, and for the time being move
to charging primarily based upon IPv4 resources and give
discounts to each LIR that declares they're ready for an
IPv4 switch off.<br>
To compensate for the economic advantage LIR's with
large amounts of IPv4's have, a weighting could be
applied to make each IPv4 address proportionally more
expensive as well.<br>
<br>
If you think about it I don't think it's that far off
from the thinking behind the current charging model.<br>
<br>
Speaking as a small LIR/ISP the current charging model
appears to favour uptake of IPv6 by smaller LIR/ISP's,
not the larger ones, where in my opinion it really
matters.<br>
If you look at the UK for example, I can't think of any
large LIR/ISP that is fully IPv6 ready (there's only one
I can think of that isn't too far off), yet I can think
of many smaller ones that are 100% good to go and have
been for some time.<br>
I think once all the large networks are IPv6 ready,
everyone else will follow suit very quickly, and all
LIR's should be much happier once "IPv4 scarce
resources" are no longer required.<br>
I understand that large networks are inherently more
complex, however, they are usually much better funded as
well, and imho should contribute proportionally more to
the RIPE coffers.<br>
<br>
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses
than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or
more) than we do.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Chris Smith<br>
Subtopia Ltd<br>
t.+44 (0)121 638 0888<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: members-discuss [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net">members-discuss-<wbr>bounces@ripe.net</a>]
On Behalf Of James Blessing<br>
Sent: 13 September 2016 12:59 PM<br>
To: Nigel Titley; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on
RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 13/09/2016, 12:15, "members-discuss on behalf of
Nigel Titley" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.<wbr>net</a>
on behalf of <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nigel@titley.com">nigel@titley.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
>� � The Executive Board therefore proposes to
discuss this issue at the<br>
>� � upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the
membership discusses this<br>
>� � issue on <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a>>,
keeping the discussion focused on<br>
>� � whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is
the best model for RIPE<br>
>� � NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the
alternative should be.<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
The idea of a per LIR fee only seems to be (in
principle) a good idea and one that I believe that
should be retained by RIPE.<br>
<br>
However, there are a number of reasons to move to move
to a system where 80% (a number plucked from the air) of
the costs are made up from *all* members and the
remainder made up based on the impact of individual
members on the operational costs maintaining RIPE.<br>
<br>
How you calculate these costs would of course depend on
a number of different factors and I can see different
members proposing things to their own benefit (and
therefore the detriment of others) without reference to
a single �goal�.<br>
<br>
I therefore propose that the remaining costs apportions
are focused on two separate goals �accuracy of the
database� and �conservation of scarce resource� if a
proposal does not fit within *both* of these goals then
it should be rejected as being not in the interest of
the wider community.<br>
<br>
If we, as a community, cannot achieve changes that meet
both these goals then I suggest we stay with the status
quo.<br>
<br>
Thx<br>
<br>
J<br>
--<br>
<br>
James Blessing<br>
CTO<br>
<br>
M: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B44%280%297989%20039%20476"
value="+447989039476">+44(0)7989 039 476</a><br>
E:� <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:james.blessing@keycom.co.uk">james.blessing@keycom.co.uk</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>__<br>
<br>
<br>
Email Disclaimer:<br>
This email transmission is intended for the named
addressee(s) only. Its contents are private and
confidential and should not be read, copied or disclosed
by any other person. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete the
message and any copies of it and telephone the sender or
email them by return.<br>
<br>
Although Relish Networks plc believes that this message
and any attachments are free of any viruses or other
defects which may affect a computer, it is the
responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is
free of viruses and other defects. Relish Networks plc
does not accept any responsibility for any loss or
damage arising in any way from its receipt or use.<br>
<br>
This email disclaimer is for all Relish Networks plc
companies (Company registration number 03921568) whose
registered office is at 20-22 Bedford Row, London, WC1R
4JS.<br>
<br>
Please consider the Environment before printing this
email.<br>
----<br>
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:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lirportal.ripe.net/<wbr>general/</a><br>
<br>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed
Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove
addresses.<br>
<br>
<br>
----<br>
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:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lirportal.ripe.net/<wbr>general/</a><br>
<br>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed
Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove
addresses.<br>
----<br>
If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC
members-discuss<br>
mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account
and go to the general page:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lirportal.ripe.net/<wbr>general/</a><br>
<br>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed
Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove
addresses.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">This
transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown
above. It may contain information that is privileged,
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any
review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its
contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the
original at the sender's address above by replying to this
message and including the text of the transmission received.</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">----
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:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/">https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/</a>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>