[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

El 22/09/2016 a las 18:51, Tim Armstrong escribió:
 > Rather than bickering over the last scraps of IPv4, saving smaller LIRs
 > a few hundred euros, attempting to somehow screw the older LIRs, or
 > three at the same time. Wouldn't our time be better spent working out
 > ways to improve end user adoption of IPv6?

Hi,

I Wonder why solution to small LIRs is to adopt IPv6. It isnt.

The problem here is big (and not so big) old LIRs are keeping lot of 
IPv4 resources they dont need. Resources that was given to them for 
*free* and resources that they are *selling* to small and new LIRs that 
only have a single /22.

And oh, surprise, we are paying the same. Why the big and old one can 
keep and sell IPv4 resources while I need to buy at a high rate the same 
resources?

Why they can *sell* the resources? Why they are not bound to return the 
unused space?

Why I must pay the same if we dont have the same conditions? If we dont 
have the same opportunities?

Yes, yes, I know, IPv4 is *out*, but is out in papers, not in the real 
life. In real life, there are A LOT of unused IPv4 space waiting to be 
selled.

Also, you would say, CGN! CGN!. Soooo, I need to buy/mantain a CGN 
becouse RIPE dont give me more space while other LIRs have a lot of 
unused space and we are paying the same. They dont need to CGNAT while I 
dont have any other option. Real option I mean, buying IP Space is 
insane at the moment.

My 2 cents...

Regards,