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

  

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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20131216/5d2d1e83/attachment.html>