[members-discuss] Questions about the published Draft Agenda and Supporting Documents

> My opinion remains the same!
> The main task of RIPE NCC is to manage the IP address space. And
> unfortunately we are not doing well with this.
>
Yes and No...
The main tasks of RIPE is to manage the IR (Internet Resourses) and not 
only IPV4/IPV6 address spaces but also ASN space, to keep working 24/7 
access to the DB, where our routers can fetch info, to keep ROA 
infrastructure and many more. And Yes RIPE not doing well with this. Such 
creatures like IP brokers _MUST_ not exists. Internet resources are not 
for selling/renting and e.t.c. IR  _ARE_ for using to can internet working 
at all.

>
> We need to introduce a fee for EACH IPv4 IP address, and the amounts
> received should be directed to the development of IPv6 and the mechanisms
> of its compatibility with IPv4. For example, the development of mechanisms
> like IPv8.
>
Yes and No...

RIPE should charge LIRs per resources they are holding. As more resources 
the LIR holds, as more the LIR have to pay. Because more resources means 
bigger bussiness, more clients, and more work for the RIPE staff.

There is no sense to make IPV6 <-> IPV4 compability. Because there is such 
already. You can look to IPV6 like an extender of IPV4, for example:

IPV4: 94.103.233.56
IPV6: 2001:7f8:1:1:94:103:233:56

Isnt the first 4 x 16bit numbers extending your tiny 32bit IPV4 ? Get one 
/32 IPV6 block from RIPE, and you can use it like IPV4 but in that /32 
block you will have 18446744078004518913 times more IPs that you have in 
the all IPV4 address space just for you :) You can use IPV6 in the same 
way you use your IPV4 just change . with : if you like. But when you dive 
deeper in IPV6 will find much better, smarter and easier to configure ways.

The biggest problem is that access providers keep buying cheaper equipment 
that dont always support IPV6, and what to say about IPV8 ? Cheaper 
equipment dont even work properly with IPV4 NAT, because it breaking 
contrack table and NATed IPV4 connection become unstable. Also in many 
fields of the application software there are no good IPV6 support or any 
IPV6 support. There are a lot to improve from the equipment manufacturers 
and software programmers (maybe better to say coders, because this days 
hard to find realy good and skilled programmers who knows what exactly 
he/she is doing).


Right now I am deploying dual stack (IPV4/IPV6) network to clients of one 
access provider in our region. Working with epon/gpon technology, with 
cheap equipment, making custom onu firmwares, and know very well where are 
the problems I can assure you on 100% that IPV6 works much better than 
double treble or even four time NAT behind NAT because lack of IPV4 
addresses (If you need help write me We can advice your network 
engineers/administrators or even make all your network dual stack).

>
> We should direct our efforts not to reduce the budget, but to solve the
> general problem of the address space.
>

The RIPE budget _MUST_ be reduced, because tens millions euro is too much 
for such organisation with non commercial purposes. Money should be 
invested in open source projects wich creates a really good and nice 
software. No matter what we say, all telecoms equipments (from cisco to 
absolutely no name chinese one) uses linux + open source code today. And 
puting money in good useful and mainly working projects will help us all + 
will make the internet with better quality accessible to all around the 
globe.


Ivaylo Josifov
VarnaIX / Varteh LTD
+359 52 969393
Varna, Bulgaria


On Fri, 3 Nov 2023, sdy at a-n-t.ru wrote:

> My opinion remains the same!
> The main task of RIPE NCC is to manage the IP address space. And
> unfortunately we are not doing well with this.
>
> We need to introduce a fee for EACH IPv4 IP address, and the amounts
> received should be directed to the development of IPv6 and the mechanisms
> of its compatibility with IPv4. For example, the development of mechanisms
> like IPv8.
>
> We should direct our efforts not to reduce the budget, but to solve the
> general problem of the address space.
>
>> On 02/11/2023 17:31, Kaj Niemi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> First, I think it is important to note that /something/?was done. They
>>> did reduce the expenditure by 3.8% (budgeted 2023 vs forecasted 2023).
>>> Could they have reduced it more? Probably, but by how much more is
>>> debatable.
>>
>> This is excellent news and it shows that the EB is listening to its
>> members.  Lets hope that in future years, the budget can be further
>> reduced by 1-3%.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hank
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/sdy%40a-n-t.ru
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> ? ????????? ???????? ???????
> ??? "????? ??? ???????"
> +7(498)785-8-000 ???.
> +7(495)940-92-11 ???.
> +7(925)518-10-69 ???.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>