From fg at numlog.fr Thu Dec 12 15:04:27 2013 From: fg at numlog.fr (Francis GASCHET) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:04:27 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: References: <84A651A5-AFED-491A-888C-B30EF108DBDB@edis.at> <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> Message-ID: <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> Hello, As a small LIR I can only subscribe to such proposal. This way we'd get a very fair funding scheme for RIPE. Best regards, Francis GASCHET / NUMLOG Le 21/11/2013 17:59, "Mag. Matthias ?ubik" a ?crit : > Dear community: > ..... Or make RIPE fees based on IP Pools hold. Then there is immediate calculation going on, how much space needs to be hold for 1/3/5/10 years. 50 cents per IP per year from 2015 on, would move large pools back to RIPE NCC, as this would reduce most LIRs to the technical minimum space needed. From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Thu Dec 12 16:00:15 2013 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:00:15 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> References: <84A651A5-AFED-491A-888C-B30EF108DBDB@edis.at> <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> Message-ID: <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> On Dec 12, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Francis GASCHET wrote: > As a small LIR I can only subscribe to such proposal. > Le 21/11/2013 17:59, "Mag. Matthias ?ubik" a ?crit : >> Dear community: >> ..... Or make RIPE fees based on IP Pools hold. Then there is immediate calculation going on, how much space needs to be hold for 1/3/5/10 years. 50 cents per IP per year from 2015 on, would move large pools back to RIPE NCC, as this would reduce most LIRs to the technical minimum space needed. Hi, this was discussed a bit in the past but did not get through at the end. This is the current status and we really need to do something about it: - IPv4 space is formally exhausted - A lot of it is actually allocated (and sometimes assigned) but si NOT really in use - Some LIRs requested and had allocated in the past huge amounts of IP space - I receive on average two emails per day from people asking me if we want to SELL IP addresses - We see flames on the list about LIRs that are suspected to have too many IPs for some reason I think that all this is nonsense. Really, the RIPE membership fees should be based mostly on "the share of limited resources that your LIR uses", if a LIR has a /8 allocated that is 1/23th of the whole address space available from RIPE; thus should pay alone 1/23th of the budget of RIPE (the model might of course keep in count also other resources like IPv6 and ASNs, but allocating "a significant share of the available IPv6 address space" seems a quite unlikely thing to happen). Doing this would magically free a huge amount of address space, end this shameful "IP address market" and push toward both efficient resource usage and a faster transition to IPv6. I know that there were objections to this idea, which were basically: - Big ISPs would pay a lot: fair enough, they have a big budget. - RIPE can not "sell" IP addresses: not true, RIPE already does have fees changing on the amount of allocated resources, the principle does not change (change the classes from small-medium-large to /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 ? /24, and give each class a fee, formally it is not a change in the model) - RIPE would be considered a commercial entity and pay taxes: 1) not true, see previous point; 2) Should even this happen we can live with that JMHO, Regards, A. -------------------------- Andrea Cocito andrea.cocito at ifom.eu CTO - Chief Technology Officer IFOM -- FIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology Via Adamello 16 20139 Milano - Italy tel: +39-02-574303000 fax: +39-02-574303231 From rob.golding at astutium.com Thu Dec 12 16:24:08 2013 From: rob.golding at astutium.com (rob.golding at astutium.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:24:08 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> References: "\"<84A651A5-AFED-491A-888C-B30EF108DBDB@edis.at> <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com>" <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com>" <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> Message-ID: > Really, the RIPE membership fees should be based mostly on "the share > of limited resources that your LIR uses", > if a LIR has a /8 allocated > that is 1/23th of the whole address space available from RIPE; thus > should pay alone 1/23th of the budget of RIPE But that 1 entry in a database isn't 1/23rd of the cost of running the behemoth that RIPE has become. A *nominal* membership fee and a pay-per-db-object would be fairer. If your concern is over the amount you pay RIPE, then put up a proposal to get rid of soem of the extraneous 'projects' and other spending, so it gets back to just doing, only doing and exactly doing what it was created for - managing a db of a list of resources. If your concern is over the amount of IP addresses you can get access to - you're 10 years too late Ipv4 has run out. Get over it. Rob From gert at space.net Thu Dec 12 17:38:36 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:38:36 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> References: <84A651A5-AFED-491A-888C-B30EF108DBDB@edis.at> <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <20131212163836.GM81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 04:00:15PM +0100, Andrea Cocito wrote: > - RIPE can not "sell" IP addresses: not true, RIPE already does have fees changing on the amount of allocated resources, the principle does not change (change the classes from small-medium-large to /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 ? /24, and give each class a fee, formally it is not a change in the model) We don't. Wake up, welcome to 2013. All LIRs pay the same fee today (except for PI handling per-resource, not by-size). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Thu Dec 12 17:39:52 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:39:52 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 03:24:08PM +0000, rob.golding at astutium.com wrote: > A *nominal* membership fee and a pay-per-db-object would be fairer. Cool plan. Encourage sloppy documentation. IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and money in the denial phase. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Thu Dec 12 17:41:45 2013 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:41:45 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> Message-ID: <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > money in the denial phase. Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) A. From gert at space.net Thu Dec 12 17:45:21 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:45:21 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> References: <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <20131212164521.GP81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:41:45PM +0100, Andrea Cocito wrote: > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) The fee scheme has been changed after exhaustive discussion (especially with the bazillion ticket systems subscribed to this list) to "every LIR pays the same". Good luck finding a majority of voting members to agree on anything else. I, for one, will not agree to a fee that is directly based on the amount of IPv4 address a LIR holds - wouldn't make a difference for us either way, but because IPv4 is something that is increasingly irrelevant, and not a good base for future funding of the NCC. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From serjrazu at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 17:40:38 2013 From: serjrazu at gmail.com (Sergey Razu) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:40:38 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: References: "\"<84A651A5-AFED-491A-888C-B30EF108DBDB@edis.at> <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com>" <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com>" <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> Message-ID: ????????? ???? ?? ????????? 12 Dec 2013, ? 19:24, rob.golding at astutium.com ???????(?): >> Really, the RIPE membership fees should be based mostly on "the share >> of limited resources that your LIR uses", >> if a LIR has a /8 allocated >> that is 1/23th of the whole address space available from RIPE; thus >> should pay alone 1/23th of the budget of RIPE > > But that 1 entry in a database isn't 1/23rd of the cost of running the > behemoth that RIPE has become. > A *nominal* membership fee and a pay-per-db-object would be fairer. > > If your concern is over the amount you pay RIPE, then put up a proposal > to get rid of soem of the extraneous 'projects' and other spending, so > it gets back to just doing, only doing and exactly doing what it was > created for - managing a db of a list of resources. > > If your concern is over the amount of IP addresses you can get access to > - you're 10 years too late > Ipv4 has run out. Get over it. > > Rob > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From ripe at centronet.cz Mon Dec 16 10:20:23 2013 From: ripe at centronet.cz (RIPE) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:20:23 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> Hello, everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. Merry Christmas to everyone Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > money in the denial phase. Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) A. ---- 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: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From oliver.bryssau at origin-broadband.co.uk Mon Dec 16 10:58:51 2013 From: oliver.bryssau at origin-broadband.co.uk (Oliver Bryssau) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:58:51 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> Message-ID: Hi All, I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively. Merry Christmas, Oliver On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" wrote: > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying > reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 > requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for > others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't > think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few > more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might > have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would > appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more > months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses > sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who > had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and > doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop > to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying > that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't > have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care > about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state > because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal > here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed > from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, > so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your > understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no > problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release > them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Mon Dec 16 11:38:26 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:38:26 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: References: <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> Message-ID: <20131216103826.GR81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:58:51AM +0000, Oliver Bryssau wrote: > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe > framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive > change. Sure you can, just add a 5th digit to your IPv4 addresses to make them last longer. The point is: assuming that there are "great masses of unused IPv4 space" is delusional. There *is* unused IPv4 space, but even if someone would be willing to pay for the efforts of reclaiming it, it will not last for "multiple years to come" but would be gone again in a few months if handed out freely - but, to point this out, in the RIPE region the current IPv4 policy will still be "every LIR can only get a single(!) /22 out of this". It's not like people haven't been told for 10+ years that they should prepare for the IPv4 run-out and deploy IPv6 - and lots of people have already done that. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rade.djurasinovic at blic.net Mon Dec 16 11:40:04 2013 From: rade.djurasinovic at blic.net (Rade Djurasinovic) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:40:04 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> Message-ID: <52AED884.7020908@blic.net> IPv4 market should be illegal. How someone can sell IPv4 address space, if RIPE is allocating address space based on their needs??? If they sell addresses, RIPE allocated to them more than they need. On 12/16/2013 10:58 AM, Oliver Bryssau wrote: > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe > framework to see if there is something that can be done to create > positive change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must > look to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" > wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, > denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 > letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it > obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand > IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating > small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, > releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better > impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate > "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more > months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP > addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are > happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started > at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just > return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky > us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 > because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this > problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care > about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like > current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit > from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I > don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves > everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against > returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > ] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering > wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or > elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so > all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of > effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be > no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated > to release them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Mon Dec 16 11:43:03 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:43:03 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: <52AED884.7020908@blic.net> References: <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <52AED884.7020908@blic.net> Message-ID: <20131216104303.GS81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:40:04AM +0100, Rade Djurasinovic wrote: > IPv4 market should be illegal. > How someone can sell IPv4 address space, if RIPE is allocating address > space based on their needs??? > If they sell addresses, RIPE allocated to them more than they need. The allocation policies always included room for growth - and in some cases, growth did not happen as planned, or the customer structure changed, resulting in some unused allocations. The IPv4 policy never had terms for reclaiming unused allocations - and that was pointed out clearly at the address policy working group meeting two years ago. There was no mandate from the community either to change that. There are a lot of "it should be..." or "it would be nice if...", but there's also a lot of reality out there. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Mon Dec 16 11:46:47 2013 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:46:47 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: <20131216104303.GS81676@Space.Net> References: <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <52AED884.7020908@blic.net> <20131216104303.GS81676@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > There are a lot of "it should be..." or "it would be nice if...", but > there's also a lot of reality out there. Yes, this is the reality, and having LIRs pay a significant amount of money for the IP addresses they have allocated would fix it (I get 4-5 mails like this one per week?). Begin forwarded message: > From: Selim Reza
> Subject: IP Acquisition > Date: December 13, 2013 12:25:34 PM GMT+01:00 > To: undisclosed-recipients: ; > > > Hello, > > We are a very reputable company from the US looking for a partner in your country to provide IPV4 and IPV6 space. If you are interested please reply and we can discuss details of our offer and partnership. > Have a great day! > > Regards, > > Selim Reza > IP Management Services From ipas.master at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 12:02:03 2013 From: ipas.master at gmail.com (Andrei Kushnireuski) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:02:03 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: References: <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <52AED884.7020908@blic.net> <20131216104303.GS81676@Space.Net> Message-ID: <8B8AE3A6-3114-4730-86B2-8ED294D57636@gmail.com> LOF... I have 4-5 same emails per day =) If I understand correctly all of them are sent by the spammers to get free IP allocations for their needs. On 16 Dec 2013, at 11:46, Andrea Cocito wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Gert Doering wrote: >> There are a lot of "it should be..." or "it would be nice if...", but >> there's also a lot of reality out there. > > Yes, this is the reality, and having LIRs pay a significant amount of money for the IP addresses they have allocated would fix it (I get 4-5 mails like this one per week?). > > Begin forwarded message: >> From: Selim Reza
>> Subject: IP Acquisition >> Date: December 13, 2013 12:25:34 PM GMT+01:00 >> To: undisclosed-recipients: ; >> >> >> Hello, >> >> We are a very reputable company from the US looking for a partner in your country to provide IPV4 and IPV6 space. If you are interested please reply and we can discuss details of our offer and partnership. >> Have a great day! >> >> Regards, >> >> Selim Reza >> IP Management Services > > > > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. - Andrei Kushnireuski AK1065-RIPE regID: cz.alfatelecom From hph at oslo.net Mon Dec 16 11:33:44 2013 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:33:44 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Reclaiming unused Ipv4 blocks In-Reply-To: References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> Message-ID: <52AED708.4050207@oslo.net> (Hi, I have changed the subject since the substance of the discussion now seem to have moved to a discussion on how to reclaim unused Ipv4 to prolong the lifetime of Ipv4. On 16.12.2013 10:58, Oliver Bryssau wrote: > Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks It would be good for the discussion to understand which blocks we are talking about: - legacy space - (from IANA or InterNic) - before RIPE creation - older RIPE space not fully utilized - recent RIPE space not yet utilized There has been various attempts to reclaim address space in the past. Using the RIPE fee structure in this context may be more difficult and is ultimately a topic for the General Assembly. The fee is not for the lease or purchase off address space but a fee for the services provided by the RIPE NCC to its members. Registration services is only part of this fee, there are also other services and most importantly support for the Policy process and RIPE meetings. The breakdown of the cost is now in the activity plan. Hans Petter From sajjad.n at mtnirancell.ir Mon Dec 16 12:10:09 2013 From: sajjad.n at mtnirancell.ir (Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ]) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:10:09 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market Message-ID: <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D9697@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> HI all, Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? Regards . MTNIrancell Mail Disclaimer available at: http://www.irancell.ir/maildisclaimer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Mon Dec 16 12:12:48 2013 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:12:48 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market In-Reply-To: <20131216111145.BB25E33C34F@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <20131216111145.BB25E33C34F@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Define "using them"? Also as far as I know there's no way for any of the RIRs to randomly take back IP space .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________ From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] [sajjad.n at mtnirancell.ir] Sent: 16 December 2013 11:10 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market HI all, Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? Regards . MTNIrancell Mail Disclaimer available at: http://www.irancell.ir/maildisclaimer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sajjad.n at mtnirancell.ir Mon Dec 16 12:14:56 2013 From: sajjad.n at mtnirancell.ir (Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ]) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:14:56 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market In-Reply-To: References: <20131216111145.BB25E33C34F@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D96D7@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> Using them in terms of assigning to their customers and advertising in their BGP . Regards From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele at blacknight.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 2:43 PM To: Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ]; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: IPV4 market Define "using them"? Also as far as I know there's no way for any of the RIRs to randomly take back IP space .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________ From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] [sajjad.n at mtnirancell.ir] Sent: 16 December 2013 11:10 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market HI all, Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? Regards . MTNIrancell Mail Disclaimer available at: http://www.irancell.ir/maildisclaimer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Mon Dec 16 12:21:36 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:21:36 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market In-Reply-To: <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D96D7@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> References: <20131216111145.BB25E33C34F@merlin.blacknight.ie> <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D96D7@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> Message-ID: Hi, > Using them in terms of assigning to their customers and advertising in their BGP . That is not the only valid way to use RIPE-NCC-provided address space. Using it for closed networks and/or not advertising it in BGP are completely valid cases. Cheers, Sander From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Mon Dec 16 12:22:25 2013 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:22:25 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market In-Reply-To: <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D9697@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> References: <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D9697@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> Message-ID: <42509499-4A1C-4D70-88F2-BC954AFA41E5@ifom.eu> On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] wrote: > HI all, > > Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? > Because re-evaluation would be a long, complex and costly process. On the other side having the membership fee depending in a substantial way on the amount of allocated address space would force LIRs to optimise their usage spontaneously. A. From tony.turner at nodemax.com Mon Dec 16 12:34:29 2013 From: tony.turner at nodemax.com (Tony Turner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> Message-ID: <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> Hi All, A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won't work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP's ... What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market .... Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage and of course lack of Government funding. First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. Now we have given back promptly 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, "hey we can get some more". With IP's that's different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP's will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. The only IP's you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP's are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ... So charging won't necessarily work. Regards Tony From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Oliver Bryssau Sent: 16 December 2013 09:59 To: RIPE Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively. Merry Christmas, Oliver On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" wrote: Hello, everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. Merry Christmas to everyone Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > money in the denial phase. Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) A. ---- 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: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- 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: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik at bais.name Mon Dec 16 12:06:51 2013 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:06:51 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: References: <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <52AED884.7020908@blic.net> <20131216104303.GS81676@Space.Net> Message-ID: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91CAE39646C@E2010-MBX03.exchange2010.nl> Hi Andrea, Companies that spam the complete over and over again .. are not looking for IP space .. they are .. indeed spammers. We all get the emails from companies from the USA that are looking for IP space these days ... But if they would be eligible for ARIN space as a US company, why would they feel the need to spam the complete RIPE db ? ARIN still has 2 /8's ... and it is a lot cheaper for them to actually get the IP space directly from their own RIR instead of in a depleted region. Any company that requires more IP space, should go to the RIPE website, look at either the listing page or the transfer page where they can find the brokers. As Gert stated, reclaiming un-used IP space won't solve the issue. And it will also not distribute the last bit of IP space more fairly than via a broker. Changes are that if a big portion would be reclaimed and all policies changed to re-issue that reclaimed space, similar as in the final 14 days before depletion, it will be snagged up by some large telco in a single request and we all go back to our daily lives. It is not worth the effort imho. Erik -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: maandag 16 december 2013 11:47 To: Gert Doering Cc: Rade Djurasinovic; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > There are a lot of "it should be..." or "it would be nice if...", but > there's also a lot of reality out there. Yes, this is the reality, and having LIRs pay a significant amount of money for the IP addresses they have allocated would fix it (I get 4-5 mails like this one per week?). Begin forwarded message: > From: Selim Reza
> Subject: IP Acquisition > Date: December 13, 2013 12:25:34 PM GMT+01:00 > To: undisclosed-recipients: ; > > > Hello, > > We are a very reputable company from the US looking for a partner in your country to provide IPV4 and IPV6 space. If you are interested please reply and we can discuss details of our offer and partnership. > Have a great day! > > Regards, > > Selim Reza > IP Management Services ---- 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: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From gert at space.net Mon Dec 16 12:54:33 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:54:33 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market In-Reply-To: <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D9697@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> References: <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D9697@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> Message-ID: <20131216115433.GT81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:10:09AM +0000, Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] wrote: > Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? As explained, the address policy framework has no provisions for "taking back" allocations. So: the RIPE NCC *cannot* do that. Even if the policy framework would be changed today, it would be doubtful whether that can be applied retroactively. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcs at bitcanal.com Mon Dec 16 12:48:21 2013 From: jcs at bitcanal.com (Joao Silveira) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:48:21 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC In-Reply-To: <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> References: "\"<7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net>" <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu>" <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> Message-ID: <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> Hi All, Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > Hi All, > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won't work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP's ... > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market .... > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. > > Now we have given back promptly 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, "hey we can get some more". > > With IP's that's different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP's will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > The only IP's you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP's are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ... > > So charging won't necessarily work. > > Regards > > Tony > > FROM: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] ON BEHALF OF Oliver Bryssau > SENT: 16 December 2013 09:59 > TO: RIPE > CC: members-discuss at ripe.net > SUBJECT: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [2] [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [3]] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net [4] > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere >> will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you >> are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and >> money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) > > A. > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [6] > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [7] > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Links: ------ [1] mailto:ripe at centronet.cz [2] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [3] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [4] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net [5] mailto:gert at space.net [6] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [7] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony.turner at nodemax.com Mon Dec 16 13:08:14 2013 From: tony.turner at nodemax.com (Tony Turner) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:08:14 -0000 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> References: "\"<7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net>" <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu>" <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> Message-ID: <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com> Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. All I was saying is charging for each IP?s won?t work where as it does in the telecoms market. IP Market = resource < demand (charging won?t help) Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won?t make a difference. Tony From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Joao Silveira Sent: 16 December 2013 11:48 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira logo On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: Hi All, A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won?t work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP?s ... What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market .... Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage and of course lack of Government funding. First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. Now we have given back promptly 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, ?hey we can get some more?. With IP?s that?s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP?s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. The only IP?s you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP?s are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ... So charging won?t necessarily work. Regards Tony From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Oliver Bryssau Sent: 16 December 2013 09:59 To: RIPE Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively. Merry Christmas, Oliver On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" wrote: Hello, everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. Merry Christmas to everyone Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > money in the denial phase. Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) A. ---- 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: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- 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: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Mon Dec 16 13:53:19 2013 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:53:19 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com> References: "\"<7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net>" <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu>" <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com> Message-ID: <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> Hi Tony, 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing. The rest is just noise. Paolo > Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not > bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. > > All I was saying is charging for each IP?s won?t work where as it does > in the telecoms market. > > IP Market = resource < demand (charging won?t help) > > Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) > > So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won?t make a > difference. > > Tony > > *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 > *To:* members-discuss at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > logo > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > > Hi All, > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won?t > work .... all it will do is create another market for those with > extra IP?s ... > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not > guaranteed to work in this market .... > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had > been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some > ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, > but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not > Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but > that has all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they > say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer > or not. > > Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big > mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some > of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the > service. > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using > them will give them back as they know, ?hey we can get some more?. > > With IP?s that?s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run > out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and > can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the > big telcos/ISP?s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > The only IP?s you may get back if they are charged for is from small > operators ... but as IP?s are so scarce I even doubt these will be > given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce > resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers > where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just > allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of > such will make you smile ... > > So charging won?t necessarily work. > > Regards > > Tony > > *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 > *To:* RIPE > *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the > Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to > create positive change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must > look to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" > wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, > denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 > letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it > obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand > IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small > IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, > releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact > for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few > more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP > addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy > IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 > directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them > all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may > even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you > have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't > want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or > in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own > those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, > I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed > from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same > time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for > your understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > ] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering > wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or > elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so > all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of > effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be > no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to > release them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it From nick at netability.ie Mon Dec 16 14:05:50 2013 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:05:50 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> References: "\"<7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net>" <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu>" <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com> <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> Message-ID: <52AEFAAE.5040809@netability.ie> On 16/12/2013 12:53, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if > you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing > it's a LEGAL thing. the law will need to catch up with reality. Nick From jcs at bitcanal.com Mon Dec 16 14:07:19 2013 From: jcs at bitcanal.com (Joao Silveira) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:07:19 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"<7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net>\\\" <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu>\\\" <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com>" <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com>" <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> Message-ID: <334b86cfc126ec06f6b5a9617bf08b1d@mail.bitcanal.com> Hi All, I have now some specials brains working around IPv6 in New York, and soon we be able to reach any IPv4 through IPv6 even this have only IPv4 resources. :-) Wait. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:53:19 +0100, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > Hi Tony, > > 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it > costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no > way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is > crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. > 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases > the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively > 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying > IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and > sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. > 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies > (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going > AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great > advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. > 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more > you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment > from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast > 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if > you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing > it's a LEGAL thing. > > The rest is just noise. > > Paolo > >> Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. All I was saying is charging for each IP's won't work where as it does in the telecoms market. IP Market = resource < demand (charging won't help) Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won't make a difference. Tony *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [1] [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [2]] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 *To:* members-discuss at ripe.net [3] *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira logo On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: Hi All, A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won't work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP's ... What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market .... Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage and of course lack of Government funding. First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, "hey we can get some more". With IP's that's different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP's will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. The only IP's you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP's are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ... So charging won't necessarily work. Regards Tony *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [4] members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [5]] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 *To:* RIPE *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net [6] members-discuss at ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively. Merry Christmas, Oliver On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" > wrote: Hello, everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. Merry Christmas to everyone Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [8] members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [9] members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net [10] members-discuss at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering > wrote: >> >>> IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or >> elsewhere >> >>> will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so >> all you >> >>> style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; marg >> width:100%">money in the denial phase. Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way th >> >>> y :) A. ---- If you >> o receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [12] Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- 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: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [13] Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- 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: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [14] Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it [15] ---- 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: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [16] Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Links: ------ [1] mailto:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [2] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [3] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net [4] mailto:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [5] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [6] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net [7] mailto:ripe at centronet.cz [8] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [9] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [10] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net [11] mailto:gert at space.net [12] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [13] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [14] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [15] http://www.level7.it [16] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea.cocito at ifom.eu Mon Dec 16 14:09:18 2013 From: andrea.cocito at ifom.eu (Andrea Cocito) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:09:18 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> References: "\"<7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net>" <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu>" <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com> <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> Message-ID: <823D05AE-6086-42A4-B3C3-439586CE1632@ifom.eu> Not even needed to go exponential, just make it linear. Say something like 10 cent per IP per year on average (or whatever "class" model that ends up around there) : any LIR with less than a /20 will pay less than now, who has allocated something around a /8-/16 will have to rethink about moving to IPv6 (or release the addresses, if they are not using them). A. On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > Hi Tony, > > 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it > costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no > way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is > crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. > 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases > the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively > 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying > IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and > sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. > 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies > (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going > AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great > advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. > 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more > you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment > from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast > 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if > you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing > it's a LEGAL thing. > > The rest is just noise. > > Paolo > >> Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not >> bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. >> >> All I was saying is charging for each IP?s won?t work where as it does >> in the telecoms market. >> >> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won?t help) >> >> Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) >> >> So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won?t make a >> difference. >> >> Tony >> >> *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira >> *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 >> *To:* members-discuss at ripe.net >> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC >> >> Hi All, >> >> Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. >> >> Hugs, >> >> --- >> >> Joao Silveira >> >> logo >> >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won?t >> work .... all it will do is create another market for those with >> extra IP?s ... >> >> What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not >> guaranteed to work in this market .... >> >> Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... >> >> Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had >> been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some >> ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, >> but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 >> >> Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not >> Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. >> >> Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but >> that has all started to change due to a shortage >> >> and of course lack of Government funding. >> >> First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... >> >> Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they >> say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. >> >> They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer >> or not. >> >> Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big >> mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some >> of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the >> service. >> >> Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using >> them will give them back as they know, ?hey we can get some more?. >> >> With IP?s that?s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run >> out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and >> can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the >> big telcos/ISP?s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. >> >> The only IP?s you may get back if they are charged for is from small >> operators ... but as IP?s are so scarce I even doubt these will be >> given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce >> resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers >> where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just >> allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). >> >> You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of >> such will make you smile ... >> >> So charging won?t necessarily work. >> >> Regards >> >> Tony >> >> *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >> >> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau >> *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 >> *To:* RIPE >> *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net >> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC >> >> Hi All, >> >> I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. >> >> I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the >> Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to >> create positive change. >> >> This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must >> look to support ipv6 natively. >> >> Merry Christmas, >> Oliver >> >> On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" > > wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, >> denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 >> letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it >> obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand >> IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small >> IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, >> releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact >> for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few >> more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. >> >> While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP >> addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy >> IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 >> directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them >> all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may >> even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you >> have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't >> want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or >> in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own >> those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, >> I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed >> from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same >> time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for >> your understanding. >> >> >> Merry Christmas to everyone >> >> Matej Vavrousek >> CentroNet, a.s. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >> >> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >> ] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM >> To: Gert Doering >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering > > wrote: >>> IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or >> elsewhere >>> will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so >> all you >>> are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of >> effort and >>> money in the denial phase. >> >> Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be >> no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to >> release them and save money :) >> >> A. >> >> >> ---- >> 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: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >> From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> >> >> ---- >> 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: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >> From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> >> >> >> ---- >> 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: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> > > > -- > > > Ing. Paolo Di Francesco > > Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale > > Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo > > C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 > Fax : +39-091-8772072 > assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 > web: http://www.level7.it > > > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From gert at space.net Mon Dec 16 14:10:28 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:10:28 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> References: <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com> <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> Message-ID: <20131216131028.GV81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:53:19PM +0100, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it > costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no > way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is > crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. I recommend that to all my competitors. It's their business decision, or maybe, out-of-business decision. We'll see... > 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases > the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively An eyeball ISP will need to provide access to IPv4 service today, this nobody doubts. But this can be done with MAP or DS-Lite today, requiring much less IPv4 address space than for an IPv4-only ISP. Furthermore, the largest content in the world (Google, Youtube, Facebook, Akamai) is already IPv6 capable. > 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying > IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and > sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. Look again. Many of the largest Telcos in the world are already deploying IPv6 today. Like, Deutsche Telekom. [..] > 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if > you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing > it's a LEGAL thing. Then maybe you should work on that part as well. Regulations can be changed (if you find a working government). But I think it's great of some of the competition disappears from the market. More margin for the rest. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rade.djurasinovic at blic.net Mon Dec 16 14:16:59 2013 From: rade.djurasinovic at blic.net (Rade Djurasinovic) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:16:59 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <334b86cfc126ec06f6b5a9617bf08b1d@mail.bitcanal.com> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"<7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net>\\\" <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu>\\\" <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com>" <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com>" <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> <334b86cfc126ec06f6b5a9617bf08b1d@mail.bitcanal.com> Message-ID: <52AEFD4B.6070301@blic.net> On 12/16/2013 02:07 PM, Joao Silveira wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have now some specials brains working around IPv6 in New York, and > soon we be able to reach any IPv4 through IPv6 even this have only > IPv4 resources. > > :-) > > Wait. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > logo > You are talking about NAT64 and DNS64? But what if Your customers have only IPv4 CPE-s? How will your IPv6 customer establish IPSec with ipv4 only customer? Regards, Rade Djurasinovic > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:53:19 +0100, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > >> Hi Tony, >> >> 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it >> costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no >> way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is >> crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. >> 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases >> the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively >> 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying >> IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and >> sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. >> 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies >> (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going >> AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great >> advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. >> 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more >> you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment >> from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast >> 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if >> you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing >> it's a LEGAL thing. >> >> The rest is just noise. >> >> Paolo >> >>> Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not >>> bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. All I was saying is >>> charging for each IP's won't work where as it does in the telecoms >>> market. IP Market = resource < demand (charging won't help) Telecoms >>> Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) So you >>> can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won't make a >>> difference. Tony *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> >>> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> ] *On Behalf Of *Joao >>> Silveira *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 *To:* >>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by >>> NCC Hi All, Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down >>> definitively. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira logo On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 >>> 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: Hi All, A Fee for a Resource that >>> is significantly smaller than Demand won't work .... all it will do >>> is create another market for those with extra IP's ... What do other >>> markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to >>> work in this market .... Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence >>> worth so bear with me ... Our experience from a telecommunications >>> view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks >>> of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there >>> was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range >>> is 100,000 Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London >>> but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. Now Ofcom have never >>> charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to >>> change due to a shortage and of course lack of Government funding. >>> First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... >>> Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they >>> say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. They charge >>> 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. Now >>> we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big >>> mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some >>> of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the >>> service. Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not >>> using them will give them back as they know, "hey we can get some >>> more". With IP's that's different, I think whatever happens IPV4 >>> will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know >>> this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I >>> doubt the big telcos/ISP's will ever give them back. Irrespective of >>> a charge. The only IP's you may get back if they are charged for is >>> from small operators ... but as IP's are so scarce I even doubt >>> these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are >>> a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone >>> numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where >>> just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). You may think >>> great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make >>> you smile ... So charging won't necessarily work. Regards Tony >>> *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> >>> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> >>> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> ] *On Behalf Of *Oliver >>> Bryssau *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 *To:* RIPE *Cc:* >>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>> members-discuss at ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] >>> Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, I think that post >>> hits the nail on the head perfectly. I guess if so many of us feel >>> this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is >>> something that can be done to create positive change. This would be >>> a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to >>> support ipv6 natively. Merry Christmas, Oliver On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, >>> "RIPE" >>> ripe at centronet.cz>> wrote: Hello, everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" >>> is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and >>> those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be >>> true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. >>> While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that >>> punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more >>> IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might >>> have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones >>> would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few >>> more months/years this way. While I must admit I'm not sure how to >>> do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I >>> must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move >>> from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 >>> addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care >>> about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying >>> that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like >>> "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and >>> I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be >>> "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have >>> profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone >>> and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves >>> everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against >>> returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. >>> Merry Christmas to everyone Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s. >>> -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> >>> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> >>> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> >>> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: >>> Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: >>> members-discuss at ripe.net >>> members-discuss at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints >>> against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert >>> Doering gert at space.net>> wrote: >>>> IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or >>> elsewhere >>>> will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so >>> all you >>>> are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of >>> effort and >>>> money in the denial phase. >>> Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be >>> no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to >>> release them and save money :) A. ---- 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: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR >>> details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >From here, you can add >>> or remove addresses. ---- 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: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR >>> details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >From here, you can add >>> or remove addresses. ---- 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: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR >>> details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add >>> or remove addresses. >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Ing. Paolo Di Francesco >> >> Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale >> >> Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo >> >> C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 >> Fax : +39-091-8772072 >> assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 >> web:http://www.level7.it >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> 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: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthias.subik at ucnd.at Tue Dec 17 11:09:09 2013 From: matthias.subik at ucnd.at (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Mag=2E_Matthias_=8Aubik=22?=) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:09:09 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?other_options_to__=85_Reclaimi?= =?windows-1252?q?ng_unused_Ipv4_blocks?= In-Reply-To: <52AED708.4050207@oslo.net> References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <52AED708.4050207@oslo.net> Message-ID: Hello, On 16.12.2013, at 11:33, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > (Hi, I have changed the subject since the substance of the discussion > now seem to have moved to a discussion on how to reclaim unused Ipv4 to > prolong the lifetime of Ipv4. I would disagree that this should be the primary reason for a changed charging scheme. Let me draw a little picture here, starting from the criticism on unexplained large allocation holders. There are lots of little LIRs out there (we are one of them), counting IPv4 addresses in the little thousands. As a late starter, this is what we got, and we are (still) happy with it. But when comparing IPv6 migration schemes, we know that the late and little ISPs can't count on IPv4 or Dual-Stack for further growth. But incumbent telcos have the large allocations OR the money, to buy addresses if they need one. So any change towards making each and every IPv4 address count ten cents into the RIPE fees, and e.g. 1 cent for every /64 in v6 should make sure that addresses are used or returned. So I definitely don't want to extend the life of IPv4, as it makes the future more uncertain, difficult and less interesting, I do would like to see a move that does not put me in the position to wait for the customer to get tired of dual stack, wanting to come to my IPv6 offering. If RIPE gets IPv4 space back, there is no good reason (yet) to give it out again, but they should get it back, as it helps getting the nail on the coffin in (for v4). This should also be interesting for the IPv4 Investment folks, as long as they hold addresses (and pay to RIPE), they can still sell it higher to the ones in need of addresses later, as supply is much scarce by then. To summarize: asking fees for large IPv4 blocks should only accelerate the transition, not help others to reused addresses. Right now you can buy addresses (via the market at RIPE), you can put out LIR applications in large packages, or privately approach large IP allocation holders. The market is already there, the price is predictable. best regards Matthias Subik -- UCND United City Network Development GmbH Steingasse 23 1030 Wien, ?sterreich FN 188089b beim Handelsgericht Wien UID ATU 54974906 Mag. Matthias ?ubik Head of Solution Design Tel.: +43 676 83820-787 From gert at space.net Tue Dec 17 11:14:11 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:14:11 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] other options to ? Reclaiming unused Ipv4 blocks In-Reply-To: References: <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <52AED708.4050207@oslo.net> Message-ID: <20131217101411.GN81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:09:09AM +0100, "Mag. Matthias ?ubik" wrote: [..] Please do *not* cross-post between the members-discuss and address-policy-wg mailing lists. Charging scheme discussions should stay in members-discuss, as APWG has no direct influence on the charging scheme. Policy change discussions are welcome in the address-policy-wg list, but should not cross-post to members-discuss, as that will fragment the discussion threads (some replies go to one of the lists, some go to the other, noise level goes up). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tore at redpill-linpro.com Tue Dec 17 11:18:46 2013 From: tore at redpill-linpro.com (Tore Anderson) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:18:46 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market In-Reply-To: <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D9697@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> References: <28DA3C53BBF55B4ABD7D7CB2879E7BEB01051D9697@tew013.mtnirancell.ir> Message-ID: <52B02506.500@redpill-linpro.com> * Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] > Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back > from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? Because it completely fails a cost-benefit analysis, for starters. 1) High Cost: 1.1) It would be delusional to think that the LIRs in question would be willingly give up their space (they can already do so). Expect long and hard court battles. Are you willing to foot the bill for such an endeavour? I certainly am not. 1.2) Tasking the RIPE NCC with this role would do irreparable damage to its reputation. Today, the NCC is a well liked and respected organisation. Do we really want to transform them into a universally detested "IPv4 Police"? 2) Minimal Benefit: 2.1) Even if the NCC was successful in reclaiming any IPv4 space, it all will go into the "last /8" pool. This means reclaiming unused space will not make it actually be any more used than before, it just goes into "NCC storage". It might end up being used 10-15 years from now, once the "last /8" pool we already have has been depleted, but it will not provide immediate relief for anyone. 2.2) Even if the "last /8 policy" was repealed, any reclaimed space would go out the door almost instantly. It would be delusional to think that enough space could be reclaimed in a short enough time to enable us to resume operating like we did prior to September 2012. At best, a few LIRs would get lucky, most would not. > please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view 404, for anyone who cares to fix. Tore From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Wed Dec 18 10:13:19 2013 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:13:19 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <52AEFAAE.5040809@netability.ie> References: "\"<7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net>" <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu>" <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com> <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> <52AEFAAE.5040809@netability.ie> Message-ID: <52B1672F.9050009@level7.it> >> 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if >> you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing >> it's a LEGAL thing. > > the law will need to catch up with reality. > > Nick > the law is following the right principle AND the reality, the problem is that the current market is NOT following the right principle NOR the reality, i.e. move to IPv6 This is happening ONLY because large ISP love to keep this as they are (my opinion) For sure we need the European goverment to go into this and BY LAW force large providers (especially mobile) to provide at least native IPv6. Not tomorrow, not today, YESTERDAY! As I said, the rest is just market excuses Regards Paolo -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Wed Dec 18 10:15:17 2013 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:15:17 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <823D05AE-6086-42A4-B3C3-439586CE1632@ifom.eu> References: "\"<7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net>" <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu>" <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <001e01cefa52$c85d8f00$5918ad00$@turner@nodemax.com> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <004a01cefa57$7f851550$7e8f3ff0$@turner@nodemax.com> <52AEF7BF.4090505@level7.it> <823D05AE-6086-42A4-B3C3-439586CE1632@ifom.eu> Message-ID: <52B167A5.6040808@level7.it> Linear has no sense for a scarse resourse: the more you get the more you pay. Linear does not follow that simple principle. So if you really would see people implementing IPv6, then maybe not exponential but for sure not linear > Not even needed to go exponential, just make it linear. > > Say something like 10 cent per IP per year on average (or whatever > "class" model that ends up around there) : any LIR with less than a > /20 will pay less than now, who has allocated something around a > /8-/16 will have to rethink about moving to IPv6 (or release the > addresses, if they are not using them). > > A. -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it From vladd at beetux.com Wed Dec 18 16:17:31 2013 From: vladd at beetux.com (Vlad Dascalu) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:17:31 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: <2424430468511143316@unknownmsgid> References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <2424430468511143316@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: >> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won?t help) That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand. Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources. Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. Vlad On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Tony Turner wrote: > > > Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered > by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. > > > > All I was saying is charging for each IP?s won?t work where as it does in > the telecoms market. > > > > IP Market = resource < demand (charging won?t help) > > Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) > > > > So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won?t make a > difference. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 > *To:* members-discuss at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > > Hi All, > > Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > [image: logo] > > > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won?t work > .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP?s .. > > > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not > guaranteed to work in this market .... > > > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been > issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were > issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 > blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... > 1K would have been fine. > > > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has > all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say > are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or > not. > > > > Now we have given back *promptly* 4 million phone numbers some big mobile > companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those > numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. > > > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them > will give them back as they know, ?hey we can get some more?. > > > > With IP?s that?s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or > has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to > keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP?s will > ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > > > The only IP?s you may get back if they are charged for is from small > operators ... but as IP?s are so scarce I even doubt these will be given > back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a > demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less > than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so > mis -managed). > > > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such > will make you smile .. > > > > So charging won?t necessarily work. > > > > Regards > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [ > mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net ] > *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 > *To:* RIPE > *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe > framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive > change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look > to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying > reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 > requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for > others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't > think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few > more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might > have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would > appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more > months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses > sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who > had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and > doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop > to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying > that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't > have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care > about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state > because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal > here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed > from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, > so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your > understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no > problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release > them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jon at fido.net Wed Dec 18 16:51:26 2013 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby (FidoNet)) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:51:26 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <2424430468511143316@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: The main thing holding ?large? providers back from rolling out IPv6 across the board is cost ? you?ll have to increase the effective costs of IPv4 to $100 per IP before you?ll be at a point where the cost savings of switching to IPv6 outweigh the costs of depreciating the current IPv4 capable kit and going through natural expansion / upgrades to kit capable of IPv6 Vendors have been slow to produce kit which is IPv6 capable .. they?re starting to do this, but on the whole the big players have been holding off on the $xx million capex spend until the kit they have in place has depreciated sufficiently. Some of the bigger players here in the UK were almost at the point of rolling out kit which is v6 capable when they found that this kit also did CGNAT and rolling out CGN is easier / cheaper than rolling IPv6 ?in the short term? Then you have to factor in CPE ? from Broadband (and VoIP) perspective not all kit does IPv6 yet Rather than forcing an exponential cost increase in v4 address space, work to roll out IPv6 now and get a _competitive advantage_ against the big boys - then make hay while their accountants tell them they can?t spend money on the v6 kit. When they finally do we might find their land grab pricing has to disappear and they start to cover the costs of the new infrastructure they?ve had to roll out ?. All you?ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys less competitive and drive a few more out of business whilst the big boys go ?oh well another 20c per user on our cost base, c?est la vie IPv4 is dead. IPv6 is the future. Roll out IPv6 .. push the vendors to provide IPv6 compatible kit ? harder I know when the big boys aren?t pushing .. but push never the less .. if enough of us small guys push hard enough then we stand a chance of getting somewhere and maybe getting a competitive advantage over the behemoth again .. for a short while Jon On 18 Dec 2013, at 15:17, Vlad Dascalu wrote: > >> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won?t help) > That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand. > > Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources. > > Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. > Vlad > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Chris.Russell at knowledgeit.co.uk Wed Dec 18 18:07:44 2013 From: Chris.Russell at knowledgeit.co.uk (Chris Russell) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:07:44 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <2424430468511143316@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <1E130DCA55D169479976824AA6D4DB332BA7CA641F@UKNEWK0999SV007.knowledgeit.co.uk> Jon, ? The main thing holding "large" providers back from rolling out IPv6 across the board is cost ... you'll have to increase the effective costs of IPv4 to $100 per IP before you'll be at a point where the cost savings of switching to IPv6 outweigh the costs of depreciating the current IPv4 capable kit and going through natural expansion / upgrades to kit capable of IPv6 Vendors have been slow to produce kit which is IPv6 capable .. they're starting to do this, but on the whole the big players have been holding off on the $xx million capex spend until the kit they have in place has depreciated sufficiently. [cut] Whilst I agree with the majority of your points here, especially the CPE device point - it's possibly worth highlighting some of the work UK access networks have done on this.. We did a panel discussion on this topic at UKNOF (Disclaimer: that's me with the Northern Accent chairing it) which highlighted there has been significant research on v6. Can be viewed online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97uRcdNxDc As you've already said - the one point which came out was essentially, ipv6 adoption will really start to take hold when ipv4 runs out or is not cost effective to play the market place for it. CGN works to a certain level, but becomes difficult and expensive quickly as you scale this up - especially with certain logging requirements and so on but we aren't at a point where cost is forcing ipv6 take up. As a side note, agree with the rollout - something I'm doing at a Business Incubator network we manage. The fully managed network will all be v4/6 dual stacked, with the raw IP network being offered /56 or /60s. I expect very little take up as being quite honest, I still don't believe the consumer demand is there. Chris ________________________________ website: www.knowledgeit.co.uk | blog: www.knowledgeit.co.uk/blog | twitter: @KnowledgeITUK ________________________________ Knowledge Limited, Company Registration: 1554385 Registered Office: New Century House, Crowther Road, Washington, Tyne & Wear. NE38 0AQ Leeds Office: Viscount Court, Leeds Road, Rothwell, Leeds. LS26 0GR Tel: 0845 142 0020. Fax: 0845 142 0021 E-Mail Disclaimer: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Knowledge IT may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vladd at beetux.com Wed Dec 18 18:11:36 2013 From: vladd at beetux.com (Vlad Dascalu) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:11:36 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <2424430468511143316@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: >> All you?ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys less competitive You're not accounting the logarithmic nature of the "utility" function for IPv4. Having 1 IPv4 is insanely more satisfying than having none compared to 101 IPs instead of 100. We're rapidly approaching a situation where the smaller guys would happily give $100 for an IPv4 but they just get a straight "no". Smaller guys just want a chance to do their web startup by getting one IPv4 from their LIR and they would happily give $100 for that. Whereas getting to keep 16'000 IPs instead of 32'000 when you just need 100 of them would be something a lot of legacy businesses if it cuts their bill in half from 32 grands to 16 (assuming $1/ip -- I do believe you'll see beneficial effects kicking in at much smaller price-points). On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Jon Morby (FidoNet) wrote: > The main thing holding ?large? providers back from rolling out IPv6 across > the board is cost ? you?ll have to increase the effective costs of IPv4 to > $100 per IP before you?ll be at a point where the cost savings of switching > to IPv6 outweigh the costs of depreciating the current IPv4 capable kit and > going through natural expansion / upgrades to kit capable of IPv6 > > Vendors have been slow to produce kit which is IPv6 capable .. they?re > starting to do this, but on the whole the big players have been holding off > on the $xx million capex spend until the kit they have in place has > depreciated sufficiently. > > Some of the bigger players here in the UK were almost at the point of > rolling out kit which is v6 capable when they found that this kit also did > CGNAT and rolling out CGN is easier / cheaper than rolling IPv6 ?in the > short term? > > Then you have to factor in CPE ? from Broadband (and VoIP) perspective not > all kit does IPv6 yet > > Rather than forcing an exponential cost increase in v4 address space, work > to roll out IPv6 now and get a _competitive advantage_ against the big boys > - then make hay while their accountants tell them they can?t spend money on > the v6 kit. > > When they finally do we might find their land grab pricing has to > disappear and they start to cover the costs of the new infrastructure > they?ve had to roll out ?. > > All you?ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys > less competitive and drive a few more out of business whilst the big boys > go ?oh well another 20c per user on our cost base, c?est la vie > > IPv4 is dead. IPv6 is the future. Roll out IPv6 .. push the vendors to > provide IPv6 compatible kit ? harder I know when the big boys aren?t > pushing .. but push never the less .. if enough of us small guys push hard > enough then we stand a chance of getting somewhere and maybe getting a > competitive advantage over the behemoth again .. for a short while > > Jon > > On 18 Dec 2013, at 15:17, Vlad Dascalu wrote: > > >> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won?t help) > That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based > on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to > demand. > > Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every > telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage > them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher > price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being > easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or > other critical resources. > > Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. > Vlad > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paolo.difrancesco at level7.it Tue Dec 24 15:07:56 2013 From: paolo.difrancesco at level7.it (Paolo Di Francesco) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:07:56 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You In-Reply-To: References: <7E62FA9E-37C6-43EC-B5E1-6498039D8AAD@edisglobal.com> <54E53DFD-5E8D-4CFC-9A0F-3556C24DFC07@anytimechinese.com> <001EB946-E454-430D-9A08-31E78D7B67B0@inasset.es> <4E8EBF30-DBBD-4D2B-9738-984EE86C5FA9@anytimechinese.com> <67E1431D-6133-44D1-AEBD-C7E9971B0288@edisglobal.com> <528E3304.8060705@hostingundmehr.com> <52A9C26B.1040501@numlog.fr> <34BCCA3A-1541-4AF1-8985-982F5C257E94@ifom.eu> <20131212163952.GN81676@Space.Net> <54343D5E-5C47-41B8-8525-A5F4E93D98F9@ifom.eu> <000001cefa40$0c8cad40$25a607c0$@centronet.cz> <97947352c56722a61a3ac0d77965f48c@mail.bitcanal.com> <2424430468511143316@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <52B9953C.4070406@level7.it> Dear Jon regarding IPv6 kits, the cost depends on the business model. I talked to a Comcast guy some years ago about IPv4/IPv6, and they found that the IPv6 cost was less than managing IPv4 and NAT. As said this depends if the company just sells "pure access" (i.e. no device investment) how many routers you have to change, how many CPE (if you have some) you have to upgrade etc. Anyway, this was some years ago, I don't know what Comcast is doing in these days or what other providers are doing now. What I can say is that dual stack costs nothing on the CPE side (it costs on the access and core, but I guess nowadays most of routers do IPv6) My point is very simple: I am not asking anybody to switch off IPv4 tomorrow, I am asking to large ISP/Telco/Content to provide dual stack NOW. We already have a LARGE number of devices on the market which are IPv6 capable, which will be more and more pervasive and which are IP-Vsomething hungry. I don't know the exact numbers, but with iPad, iPhone, Androids we have a lot of Ipv6 capable devices each of them wanting an IP (if connected on the mobile operator's network) and wanting to stay online much more that in the past. Differently from the CPE they are upgraded regurarly, their number is higher tha the home CPEs, the integration is "seamless" in the user experience. By the way, the customer does not care if he/she is using IPv4 or IPv6 they care if google is working, if facebook is working if youtube is working... The IPv4/IPv6 thing is good only for us, the operators the customers at 99% do not care about it. So regarding the number of "devices" I would say that the mobile market has a great potential for IPv6 deployment much more than the fixed market. The second point: who said that we must not run dual stack? Let's start running dual stack and then let's see the IPv6 traffic grow day by day. The third point: the IPv6 contents. Most of the Internet (in terms of traffic) is IPv6 ready, I mean google, youtube, facebook, etc. The rest is slowly migrating and the real reason why "it's slowly migrating" it's because large contents providers are not providing IPv6 or customers are not using it. Again, the lack of IPv6 traffic depends on the fact that the site is not available on IPv6 or that the customer is not running any dual stack. Let's start with the top 20 sites for each nation, let's deploy IPv6-dualstack in the mobile market and let's see if the IPv6 traffic is going to grow or not. Summarizing: IPv6 traffic is not growing because nobody is giving out IPv6 addresses on the terminals (e.g. mobile phones), nor moving the content on IPv6 nor doing anything on that. Even if tomorrow all my customers will be on dual stack, most of them will still "request" traffic from IPv4 networks simply because the content is not available on dual stack (except google, youtube, facebook) How to "push" people to start deploying IPv6 NOW also depends on RIPE: do not give more IPv4 addresses to large IPv4 onwers till they provide NOW dual stack. I know that RIPE cannot charge for IPv4 address space consumption but at least can say "no more IPv4 to you" to those large AS who are not deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). Let's start with those companies who have mobile terminals and the content providers and let's see IPv6 grow. As I said, what I see from my point of view, is just a market push to NOT deploy IPv6 because it would break a lot of "barriers" Just my 2 Euro cents Paolo > The main thing holding ?large? providers back from rolling out IPv6 > across the board is cost ? you?ll have to increase the effective costs > of IPv4 to $100 per IP before you?ll be at a point where the cost > savings of switching to IPv6 outweigh the costs of depreciating the > current IPv4 capable kit and going through natural expansion / upgrades > to kit capable of IPv6 > > Vendors have been slow to produce kit which is IPv6 capable .. they?re > starting to do this, but on the whole the big players have been holding > off on the $xx million capex spend until the kit they have in place has > depreciated sufficiently. > > Some of the bigger players here in the UK were almost at the point of > rolling out kit which is v6 capable when they found that this kit also > did CGNAT and rolling out CGN is easier / cheaper than rolling IPv6 ?in > the short term? > > Then you have to factor in CPE ? from Broadband (and VoIP) perspective > not all kit does IPv6 yet > > Rather than forcing an exponential cost increase in v4 address space, > work to roll out IPv6 now and get a _competitive advantage_ against the > big boys - then make hay while their accountants tell them they can?t > spend money on the v6 kit. > > When they finally do we might find their land grab pricing has to > disappear and they start to cover the costs of the new infrastructure > they?ve had to roll out ?. > > All you?ll do by increasing the costs of IPv4 is make the smaller guys > less competitive and drive a few more out of business whilst the big > boys go ?oh well another 20c per user on our cost base, c?est la vie > > IPv4 is dead. IPv6 is the future. Roll out IPv6 .. push the vendors to > provide IPv6 compatible kit ? harder I know when the big boys aren?t > pushing .. but push never the less .. if enough of us small guys push > hard enough then we stand a chance of getting somewhere and maybe > getting a competitive advantage over the behemoth again .. for a short while > > Jon > > On 18 Dec 2013, at 15:17, Vlad Dascalu > wrote: > >> >> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won?t help) >> That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts >> based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until >> it's equal to demand. >> >> Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every >> telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will >> encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that >> higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why >> still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for >> their website or other critical resources. >> >> Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. >> Vlad >> > > > > ---- > 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: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it