[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] About IPv6 tunnels and other incentives (was: Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Armstrong
t.armstrong at nerdalize.com
Thu Sep 22 23:45:23 CEST 2016
I agree entirely, but a large number still don't and providing a solution for those affected users is still a equipment during the transition period. Not to mention we should also consider providing support for end users with legacy equipment, which I don't see any real reasons against. We (RIPE) have a surplus of funds each year, let's spend some of our helping those that can't help themselves. -Tim On 22 Sep 2016 11:07 p.m., "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas at fccn.pt> wrote: > > Hi, > > Tunnels? seriously? no, please... > > End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using. > > Anyone (at the end of 2016) providing service to third parties should be > able to provide native IPv6... > > Regards, > Carlos > > > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Tim Armstrong wrote: > > >> 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? >> >> I'd like to propose RIPE set up a fund (summer of code style) for the >> implementation of native IPv6 support in open-source software (such as >> cloudsta k, etc) and >> simplifying end-user adoption. Perhaps we should even offer a free public >> IPv6 tunnel service for natural persons similar to the service currently >> offered by >> hurricane electric. >> >> -Tim >> >> >> On 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos at je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote: >> On 09/22/2016 01:57 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote: >> I'm not saying that a discussion is bad, but I'm simply >> saying that most of the discussions are being had are not based on fact. >> >> To my knowledge RIPE doesn't have a list of members >> categorized by assignment size, so this is something that someone would >> need to parse >> the RIPE db for, it's all public record so it can be done. >> >> >> Counting all allocated IPv4 each LIR has, and converting it back to >> CIDR: >> >> CIDR Number of LIRs >> >> <= /24 1 >> <= /23 4 >> <= /22 6051 >> <= /21 1582 >> <= /20 1638 >> <= /19 1547 >> <= /18 1040 >> <= /17 709 >> <= /16 386 >> <= /15 293 >> <= /14 134 >> <= /13 110 >> <= /12 80 >> <= /11 64 >> <= /10 25 >> <= /9 14 >> <= /8 6 >> <= /7 2 >> >> IPv6 only 241 >> >> >> If we were to take ARIN's fees as example where up to and including >> /20 is less expensive than RIPE's current fees, 9276 out of the 13686 LIRs >> with IPv4 >> would pay less. >> Not just new ones... >> >> Total income would be similar. >> >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> Floris Bos >> >> >> ---- >> 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. >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160922/31728f2d/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] About IPv6 tunnels and other incentives (was: Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]