[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Rob Golding
rob.golding at astutium.com
Wed Sep 14 16:24:51 CEST 2016
On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote: > It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at > an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources. Whilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is using your model for their organisation > The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in > mind. Ultimately RIPEs "job" is to maintain a list (DB) and as a community, set policy for getting things onto that list. Each LIRs "cost" to RIPE is administrative (membership management, sending letters etc) and _somewhat_ proportionate to how much data they have in that database (and how much support/manual-work they need) The numbers in the "starting ip" and "ending ip" fields don't change that cost, effectively a /32 "costs" no more or less than a /8 - 1 record in a db is 1 record in a db > Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025? A goal to have all "publicly accessible internet devices accessible over ipv6" makes sense, but there is (and never will be) a "need" to kill off ipv4. > I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest. It's certainly not in "everyones" interest - there are millions of IPv4-only devices out there, it's not in the owners interest to have to buy (even if it was possible to replace) new ones. > If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, > then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do. And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range. Making IPv6 resources "cheaper" might be an incentive to adoption, but I doubt it. Getting the bulk of "end users" on IPv6 is (and always has been) the only real way to drive usage up, and in general end-users neither know nor care, IP is IP is IP at the end of the day Rob
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]