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

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> 
>>> [mailto: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 <mailto: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> 
>>> 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> 
>>> 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> 
>>> 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> 
>>> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> 
>>> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gert at space.net> 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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20131216/60115a76/attachment.html>