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

Dear Andrew,

Am I correct in assuming that all of those with more than one /22 from
185/8 did so via the various loopholes that have been closed over the last
year?

-Tim

On 23 Sep 2016 8:43 a.m., "Andrew de la Haye" <andrewh at ripe.net> wrote:

> Dear Arash,
>
> We just wanted to confirm that there are currently 6,203 LIRs that hold a
> /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space. Out of these,
> 444 LIRs have more than one /22 from this block, and together they hold
> 1,423 /22s.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew de la Haye
> Chief Operations Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
>
> On 22 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>>
>
> ----
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160923/64e52039/attachment.html>