> The primary motivation for this change was that both RIPE and APNIC noticed a large number of assigned ASNs that were not being advertised in the Global routing tables. Approximately 21% of all ASNs are functionally not participating in global routing.
I cant speak on APNIC's reasoning as I didnt follow it closely however I think you misunderstood the fee schedule changes in the RIPE region in regards to the new charge 50EUR per ASN and motivations behind it. RIPE declared multiple times through out the last year, that they are spending more money than they are bringing in from membership feed, something that its not currently sustainable. Setting the 50EUR charge for ASNs had absolutely nothing to do with how many ASNs are (or arent) globally routed. It was just yet another revenue stream. If you still have doubts about this point, and dont have the time to go through the multiple video recordings of fee scheduled meetings that were held by the NCC or go through the RIPE mailing list please simply refer to the RIPE88 proposal changes of fees. Three options were given, all three options solve the problem at hand which was "RIPE needs more money" and only one of the three options had an ASN fee associated it (which ended up being the option that was chosen by the majority of the RIPE voting members) the other two options proposed by the RIPE NCC would have also solved the issue and would have had no ASN fee implemented Again, I just want to clarify that that the new 50EUR ASN fee within the RIPE region has nothing to do with the percentage of routed ASNs and everything to do with being yet another revenue stream that was chosen by the RIPE members. Adam B On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 4:21 AM Nachiket Kondhalkar via ARIN-PPML < arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > Thanks for your contribution. > > The primary motivation for this change was that both RIPE and APNIC > noticed a large number of assigned ASNs that were not being advertised in > the Global routing tables. Approximately 21% of all ASNs are functionally > not participating in global routing. > > By implementing an ASN fee, they hope to have these unused numbers > returned to the RIR in order to prevent wastage in the long term. > > Each have taken separate paths to execute this. RIPE has a flat €50 fee > per ASN. While APNIC has gone for the first ASN to be free, but every > subsequent one being charged AUD600. While APNIC policies might not impact > hobby network growth in the future, RIPE policies might. > > When ARIN implemented these fees, they were justified as being a more > financial issue to stay afloat. > > Definitely appreciate your perspective though. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale W. Carder <dwcar...@es.net> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 6:19 PM > To: Nachiket Kondhalkar <n.b.kondhal...@student.tudelft.nl> > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AS Number Management Study by TU Delft > > [You don't often get email from dwcar...@es.net. Learn why this is > important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > Thus spake Nachiket Kondhalkar via ARIN-PPML (arin-ppml@arin.net) on Wed, > Jul 24, 2024 at 03:41:09PM +0000: > > Hello ARIN Policy community, > > > > APNIC and RIPE NCC have introduced an annual ASN maintenance fee from > January 2025. As part of a research group currently studying AS Number > management at TU Delft, we would like to understand the perspectives of > network administrators in reference to this change. Your experience and > expertise will help us understand and present the consensus of the > community through our research. > > > > For more information about the study: > > https://blog/ > > .apnic.net%2F2024%2F07%2F16%2Fa-comprehensive-review-of-rir-policies-i > > n-the-domain-of-asn-management%2F&data=05%7C02%7CN.B.Kondhalkar%40stud > > ent.tudelft.nl%7C9bca8712ff96494667b008dcabfc52e5%7C096e524d692940308c > > d38ab42de0887b%7C0%7C0%7C638574347408421839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey > > JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7 > > C%7C%7C&sdata=vPZRPXCPOUzVzRkk4Y9PW%2Bt0G1rdTPV5N2oZKIJ8wh4%3D&reserve > > d=0 > > For some of your questions in the survey around the perception of scaling > concerns, as I hope you are aware, there has been a large body of work > previously in this space. Probably the easiest thing to point to would be > the old IRTF RRG: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/rrg > > Dale > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
