[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 ]
Arash Naderpour
arash.naderpour at gmail.com
Thu Sep 22 13:56:54 CEST 2016
Hi Lu, If you believe that's a real problem, it needs to be addressed in a right way possibly in APWG, not but just by putting financial pressure on small new members in favor of big block holders. Regards, Arash On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote: > 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> 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/fd5d47cf/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 ]