<div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: left; font-size: 14px; color: #000000;">Still being definitely against that. It would also turn RIPE NCC from a non-profit organization into a business company.</div><div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: left; font-size: 14px; color: #000000;"><br></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">Preserving IPv4 forever is definitely not the appropriate solution. Our problem won't be resolved by claiming more and more money each year for Internet Number Resources (and that would happen of course). The only thing such a charging scheme would lead to is another delay of the pool exhaustion and stagnation of technology.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial; text-align: left; font-size: 14px; color: #000000;"><br><br><hr style="border: 0; border-bottom: 1px solid #DADADA;"><b>From:</b> ivaylo <<a href="/email/new/1/ivaylo%40bglans.net">ivaylo@bglans.net</a>><br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 17. Jan 2019 – 12:49 CET +0100<br><b>To:</b> Redcluster <<a href="/email/new/1/admin%40redcluster.org">admin@redcluster.org</a>><br><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme<br><br></div><div>
<style>
body {
font-family: "Arial";
font-size: 100% !important;
margin: 0;
line-height: 1.2rem;
}
</style>
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: #173860;">Hello,
There are no doubts the future belongs to IPV6. But if we have no good
scheme to control resource usage, what guarantee us 10-15 years after
full ipv6 deploy we will be in same situation as now. Even the fact IPV6
have 65535^8 addresses if these resources are spilled unuzed and not
optimized will over again. What better control mechanism could be than
money ?
To be realistic I cant imagine how in next 10 years IPV6 will be fully
deployed and will full substitute IPV4 from technical point of view. No
matter what penalize or encouragement to LIRs will have to use IPV6,
there are huge number of internet services that cant be easyly migrated.
The migration will happen naturaly when there are no other options,
pushing it will make only difficulties to Internet users and providers
(all of us).
For me IP market is one big crap. Internet Resources must go where they
are needed, not to sit locked and unused, because somebody want to earn
easy money from this (speculators to go on exchanges here are no room for
them). RIPE must take back all these nets which sits on the market,
because obviously they are free and not used.
I am pretty sure there are big number of unoptimize resources LIRs hold.
How many from you try to use 90% + from your resources I bet the number
can fit in 12bits. But if have to pay for something not use, that number
will grow a lot. And next time when your bussiness step up, you will have
from where to get needed resources.
My opinion about charging scheme change for 2019 is positive. If your
bussiness dont allow to pay 1400 euro in once, then you should not be LIR.
There are and other options for you. With the scheme change maybe some
smaller speculants that try to rent/sell resources only will gone.
Ivaylo Josifov
Varteh LTD
Varna Bulgaria
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Redcluster wrote:
> Hello
>
> A better solution would be to promote ipv6 and maybe offer incentives for
> ipv6 ready LIRs (or penalize LIRs that are not ipv6 ready).
>
> We need to make sure any ipv4 address is mapped to an ipv6 address so we can
> finally start to phase ipv4 out.
>
> Bogdan
>
>
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 8:54 AM, ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I 100% agree with you !
> As many resources one LIR consumes as bigger membership fee should be.
> Even to better optimize resources usage, the fee can be calculated on /24
> basis.
> example:
> /17 = 128 x /24
> fee = (128-4)*350 = 43 400 euro/year fee
> P.S. in your example should be: (32-1)*1400 = 39 200 euro.
> Ivaylo Josifov
> Varteh LTD
> Varna Bulgaria
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, TrustHost wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I think it would be great if the payment depends on the quantity the
> resources for one account. It would help to return unused IPv4 in free pool
> for new business. The companies, who really use big networks won't notice
> such changes. But who received the resources before 2012 and has unused /19
> and maybe more will think if they really need such big blocks.
>
> For example we can implement the next charging scheme.
> If one account has more than /20 (not equivalent 4x/22 or the blocks were
> allocated before 2012) the next /22 ownership will cost some price (e.g.
> 1400 euro).
>
> For example:
> There is /17 IPv4 block for one LIR account.
> /17 = 32x/22.
> The total price for this account is (32-4)*1400 = 39 200 euro.
>
> I think the members must have equal rights, regardless of the year of the
> membership started.
>
> ------------------
> Kind regards,
> Boris Loginov
>
> TrustHost LLC
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss@ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin%40
> redcluster.org
>
>
></pre>
</div>