Hello Simon, Hello Erik, Dear List,

...

- linear: An IP address should have a price. An LIR with a /12

allocation

...

uses 256 times the resources of an LIR with a /20. This should be reflected in the fee.

No, they don't. See above.

Of course, they do ;-) IPv4 address space is a scarce and valuable resource now. And a /12 user occupies a lot more that limited resource than a /20 user does. If someone justifies a /12, Internet is obviously a major part of his business (or he's incredibly huge). And more importantly, he uses a major part of the limited resource. A "fee" of EUR 0.002 per IP is more than reasonable.

How about the annual fee, calculated at the end of each calendar year is comprised of:

- A base RIPE "membership" fee - A "maintenance" fee for each allocation to the LIR (e.g. EUR 50 per allocation, like the PI blocks) - A "allocation" fee for each allocation made in the previous 12 months.

I strongly feel that there should be a fee on IP address consumption (e.g. the EUR 0.002/IP Address). I tried to avoid the "per usage" fee as it will make billing more complicated. I personally would not care about EUR 50 per allocation request.

But what about the other objects ?

ASN: I would give away ASN for free. We have rules in place that define, when an ASN is justified. The supply of ASN is unlimited for all pratical means. Don't forget": In my proposal, every resource owner will pay at least EUR 500, so this should be covered. Besides, an ASN is not very useful on its own without associated address space. We could follow ARIN: Pay EUR 500 per ASN (and USD 100 per year once per organization). PI space: Just treat it as usual, either have a sponsoring entity, where is just counts as regular IP address space, or become an extra small LIR on your own. IPv6: Have no clear opinion on this. For now, I would give it away for free now and let's discuss the matter, when IPv6 traffic approaches 25% of IPv4 traffic.

...

- Major players pay EUR 5500 at most, which will be less than

"peanuts"

...

for them.

Not necessarily. Okay, most LIRs are also ISPs, but not all. You can't assume that for an LIR that a bigger allocation means a bigger revenue stream.

Let's assume "less than /16" (2012: "large" category) for "major player". So you can justify more than 65k addresses, you have at least 65k services instances allocated to these addresses, which will need some kind of hardware. The EUR 0.002 will NEVER be an important part of your budget. We are a government funded, small "ISP" that's confined to the schoolyard. We're providing services for the schools in our district. The budget of our associated schools exceed EUR 40M/y easily. So don't tell me, that EUR 5k will be a problem for anyone who can honestly justify more than a /16. Just as a reminder, the comparison the RIPE2012 proposal and the ARIN fees: wiwi RIPE2012 ARIN /23 EUR 502 EUR 250 USD 1250 /22 EUR 502 EUR 750 USD 1250 /21 EUR 904 EUR 1750 USD 1250 /20 EUR 1308 EUR 1750 USD 2250 /19 EUR 1716 EUR 2500 USD 2250 /18 EUR 2132 EUR 2500 USD 4500 /17 EUR 2565 EUR 2500 USD 4500 /16 EUR 3031 EUR 2500 USD 4500 /15 EUR 3562 EUR 5000 USD 9000 /14 EUR 4224 EUR 5000 USD 9000 /13 EUR 5148 EUR 5000 USD 14000 /12 EUR 6597 EUR 5000 USD 14000 /11 EUR 9094 EUR 7500 USD 14000 /10 EUR 13688 EUR 7500 USD 14000 /9 EUR 22477 EUR 7500 USD 14000 /8 EUR 39654 EUR 15000 USD 14000 Calculation is simple: EUR 500 + ((log2(#IPv4)-10)*EUR 400+(EUR 0.002*#IPv4). My assumptions were: EUR 15M with 7100 members results in EUR 2100 need per member and per year in average, so a /18+ will pay more than the average share. Having members with less than EUR 500 fee is not useful, commercially. ...a and get me right, please: RIPE does a great job, no doubt. I do NOT want to deplete RIPE of money. Greetings from rainy Switzerland wiwi ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.