[members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You

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>
>     [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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>
>     [mailto: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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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