[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 ]
Lu Heng
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
Thu Sep 22 13:49:03 CEST 2016
Hi Arash: The thing is,if we make member holding /22 only pay 27 euro(at absolute sense of fairness), there will be no /22 left anymore for the next day. The only reason RIPE still have /22 is, it is still not *that* cheap. 2016年9月22日星期四,Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour at gmail.com> 写道: > Well, Those so called small minority have the same right as the others > thinking they are majority, thats why every organization has a right to > vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a level of fairness, while > you can spend more time on those real issues :) > > Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important > the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just > receive an small block of /22. And the number of those new members are more > than the old ones which are making a fortune by selling their unused IPv4 > to them. > > Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22? > > Cheers, > > Arash > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel at privatesystems.net > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','daniel at privatesystems.net');>> wrote: > >> I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly >> spouting off about things. >> >> I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result in a >> substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid points as far >> as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a market monopoly etc, yet >> the vast majority of the people crying for change have produced nothing >> substantial. >> >> As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on reality, >> then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is, let's move on to >> something more realistic, such as the folks getting /29 legacy assignments >> just to snag a LIR account as well as folks opening multiple LIR accounts >> with the hopes of transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those >> are real issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small >> minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's not fair >> lets make it fair. >> >> Daniel~ >> >> >> On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote: >> >>> I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably >>>> have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus >>>> for the good of the internet have objections. >>>> I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need >>>> it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It >>>> boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the >>>> internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry >>>> doesn't mean you should hoard it now. >>>> We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the >>>> unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing >>>> costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their >>>> resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they >>>> could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return >>>> unused space. >>>> What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni >>>> need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give >>>> EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. >>>> I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that >>>> they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because >>>> it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have >>>> only kept a /23 and returned the rest. >>>> Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their >>>> space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they >>>> continue to hoard they are penalised? >>>> >>> Wow. Just wow. >>> >>> Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim. >>> >>> All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be >>> obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. >>> (This applies to PA space too) >>> >>> None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion >>> situation anyway. >>> >>> It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the >>> items in this thread. >>> >>> BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair >>> rearrangement project? >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, >>> confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views >>> expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the >>> originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by >>> return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, >>> distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. >>> Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication >>> through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are >>> trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. >>> >>> Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited >>> (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited >>> (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc >>> (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this >>> paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same >>> registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. >>> ---- >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> ---- >> 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. >> > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160922/130fdfa7/attachment.html>
- 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 ]