Reclaiming unused Ipv4 blocks
(Hi, I have changed the subject since the substance of the discussion now seem to have moved to a discussion on how to reclaim unused Ipv4 to prolong the lifetime of Ipv4. On 16.12.2013 10:58, Oliver Bryssau wrote:
Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks
It would be good for the discussion to understand which blocks we are talking about: - legacy space - (from IANA or InterNic) - before RIPE creation - older RIPE space not fully utilized - recent RIPE space not yet utilized There has been various attempts to reclaim address space in the past. Using the RIPE fee structure in this context may be more difficult and is ultimately a topic for the General Assembly. The fee is not for the lease or purchase off address space but a fee for the services provided by the RIPE NCC to its members. Registration services is only part of this fee, there are also other services and most importantly support for the Policy process and RIPE meetings. The breakdown of the cost is now in the activity plan. Hans Petter
Hello, On 16.12.2013, at 11:33, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
(Hi, I have changed the subject since the substance of the discussion now seem to have moved to a discussion on how to reclaim unused Ipv4 to prolong the lifetime of Ipv4.
I would disagree that this should be the primary reason for a changed charging scheme. Let me draw a little picture here, starting from the criticism on unexplained large allocation holders. There are lots of little LIRs out there (we are one of them), counting IPv4 addresses in the little thousands. As a late starter, this is what we got, and we are (still) happy with it. But when comparing IPv6 migration schemes, we know that the late and little ISPs can't count on IPv4 or Dual-Stack for further growth. But incumbent telcos have the large allocations OR the money, to buy addresses if they need one. So any change towards making each and every IPv4 address count ten cents into the RIPE fees, and e.g. 1 cent for every /64 in v6 should make sure that addresses are used or returned. So I definitely don't want to extend the life of IPv4, as it makes the future more uncertain, difficult and less interesting, I do would like to see a move that does not put me in the position to wait for the customer to get tired of dual stack, wanting to come to my IPv6 offering. If RIPE gets IPv4 space back, there is no good reason (yet) to give it out again, but they should get it back, as it helps getting the nail on the coffin in (for v4). This should also be interesting for the IPv4 Investment folks, as long as they hold addresses (and pay to RIPE), they can still sell it higher to the ones in need of addresses later, as supply is much scarce by then. To summarize: asking fees for large IPv4 blocks should only accelerate the transition, not help others to reused addresses. Right now you can buy addresses (via the market at RIPE), you can put out LIR applications in large packages, or privately approach large IP allocation holders. The market is already there, the price is predictable. best regards Matthias Subik -- UCND United City Network Development GmbH Steingasse 23 1030 Wien, Österreich FN 188089b beim Handelsgericht Wien UID ATU 54974906 Mag. Matthias Šubik Head of Solution Design Tel.: +43 676 83820-787
Hi, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:09:09AM +0100, "Mag. Matthias ?ubik" wrote: [..] Please do *not* cross-post between the members-discuss and address-policy-wg mailing lists. Charging scheme discussions should stay in members-discuss, as APWG has no direct influence on the charging scheme. Policy change discussions are welcome in the address-policy-wg list, but should not cross-post to members-discuss, as that will fragment the discussion threads (some replies go to one of the lists, some go to the other, noise level goes up). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi I personally believe it is not even fair to discuss policy in member mailing list--policy is made by and for the community, not only ripe members. So anything related to future policy change should stay in APWG. 在 2013年12月17日星期二，Gert Doering 写道：
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:09:09AM +0100, "Mag. Matthias ?ubik" wrote: [..]
Please do *not* cross-post between the members-discuss and address-policy-wg mailing lists.
Charging scheme discussions should stay in members-discuss, as APWG has no direct influence on the charging scheme.
Policy change discussions are welcome in the address-policy-wg list, but should not cross-post to members-discuss, as that will fragment the discussion threads (some replies go to one of the lists, some go to the other, noise level goes up).
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
participants (2)
-
"Mag. Matthias Šubik" -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Lu Heng