- members-discuss-unmoderated

[members-discuss@ripe.net]: Email Notification.
by RIPE NCC . 08 Jun '26

08 Jun '26

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.
by Joachim Tingvold 08 Jun '26

08 Jun '26

On 2 Jun 2026, at 10:20, Chano Klinck Andersen wrote: > It’s interesting how often the assumption is made that IPv4 > addresses will be returned if they cost more to hold on to. Well, I don’t see how such a change would make it worse than what we see today? For a lot of organizations, the ~€2-3k they have to pay for their multiple /16’s or whatever that they don’t really need, is a rounding error in a lot of budgets (and “a couple of /16’s is being generous — some have WAY more that they barely use). But for a small ISP with a /24 or whatever, the ~€2-3k+++ is starting to actually matter in their total budget (I know because I’m one of them). > The way I see it, they will not be returned. Instead, they will be > sold/leased to the highest bidder. Higher fees to RIPE NCC will make > IPv4 addresses more valuable as an asset, which in turn would raise > the market price. That assumption only applies to those who are already leasing out excess address space they own… and they might also re-consider if their fee to RIPE would increase significantly. That would be the same logic as landlords in some countries that are selling their rental properties due to increased loan interest (aka its not profitable anymore). I don’t know if you still don’t have to pay for legacy address space, but that used to be the case. That’s literally zero incentive to do anything but “sit on it” (unless you speculate to sell it off, as many also have done). And those organizations that do register, can get away with the equivalent of PA-as-PI address space via sponsoring LIR (AFAIK) with essentially zero cost as well (compared to the current price of being a LIR). Ironically, for those ISPs that have “a lot of resources”, the “per resource”-model for sponsoring LIR would be more fair than the current flat-fee (i.e. they would have to pay more than they currently do via the flat-fee). I also know of individuals with /16 as PI via sponsored LIR. They pay like €150 or whatever, and use it for “shits & giggles” (sure they use *some* part of it for labbing or whatever, but still). Individuals/organizations that have these amounts of resources that are not strictly needed would for sure either a) sell, or b) return to the pool, if they had to pay “accordingly” based on their resource size. > Instead of trying to reclaim IPv4 addresses (which I don’t believe > is going to happen in any meaningful capacity), what about trying to > figure out how we can complete the transition to IPv6, making IPv4 > addresses irrelevant and ending this yearly recurring discussion once > and for all? Even if we do at some point, the dual-stack scenario is still going to be there for many decades still. Sure, we’re at a better place than just a few years back, but it’s going to take time. A long time. > The only reason, as I see it, why some members want the tiered or fee > per IPv4 address model is because they can’t get the IPv4 addresses > they need. If we had all just transitioned to IPv6 a long time ago, > when the problem became apparent and before the last /8 was used up, > no one would be complaining about the charging scheme the way they are > today. I simply want it because it’s fair to pay more for more things. If you want 100 cars, you have to pay for 100 cars. As a consultant I have worked for more organizations than I can count that has way more IPv4-resources than they would ever need. And they just sit on it because it doesn’t cost them anything. Some of them are universities that historically had a flat, one-VRF network, zero firewall, and “fully open for everyone due to being research oriented” with public IPs on every device. That was fine historically, and I don’t blame them. However, most of these have now transitioned to fully segregated networks with firewall and NAT-boxes due to the increased need for cyber security. As part of that change, many of them started to use RFC1918 address space. The old argument that “we use our public addresses because then we don’t need to have expensive NAT boxes” are no longer valid. But do they do anything about the excess IPv4 address space they have? No, they just keep it because it’s essentially zero-cost for them, even if they literally don’t use it anymore (or maybe they use a couple of /24’s of their multiple /16’s as NAT pool). Should they return it to adhere to RIPE policies? Of course. But there’s no way to reliably check if they actually use it or not. Which is part of the problem. > Prior to IPv4 run-out, we rarely ever discussed the fees, but since > running out, we have the same discussion, with the same arguments, and > the same result (no change at all) every year. I don’t technically care about the lack of IPv4 address space, and the need to return it. Its just a nice way to solve several problems; * Make sure that you pay for the service you get according to the size/value (ASN/IPv4/IPv6-resources) * Give good monetary incentive to return unneeded resources to RIPE (or sell it, both solves the problem that they don’t have to pay for it anymore) * Reduce the cost for smaller LIRs and increase it for the bigger LIRs (pay more for more things) > Furthermore, RIPE NCC is a membership association. In many > associations, members pay the same fee even if they make different > levels of use of the shared facilities or services. I have rarely seen > associations require members to pay based on their wealth or exact > usage of shared resources. I’ve seen differentiated prices for kids > vs. adults, but that’s about it. If we only received equal service (whois, etc), then I would agree with your argument. But that membership also gives you access to a resource that has a real-life monetary value, and the more you have of it, the more valuable is it. There is no way around that fact, no matter what you argue. > The discussion on RIPE NCC providing more than just barebones registry > services, the way I see it, is really a question of “for the good of > the internet community as a whole” vs. “for the good of my bottom > line”. I agree (hence why I said I like the idea of a lot of these extra services). But they still benefit a big international ISP more than a small regional one. And the big international ISP usually has a lot more money, so having to pay 10x or even 100x the current LIR fee would in most cases be unproblematic (in some cases just a rounding error on their budget). I’m not saying “pay more for more resources” will be without problems. But I think it will be a LOT better than the current price model. -- Joachim

6 7

FINANCIAL FACILITATOR
by ANWAR CAPITAL LLC 08 Jun '26

08 Jun '26

1 0

Alcohol Relief Beverage Co., Ltd.
by xiaochengzi112233 08 Jun '26

08 Jun '26

1 0

Re: New inquiry
by Staekar 07 Jun '26

07 Jun '26

1 0

We Need Your Partnership
by Dr Yesuf Usman 07 Jun '26

07 Jun '26

Dearest Confidant First, I must solicit your confidence in this transaction. This is by virtue of its nature as being utterly confidential and top secret. You have been recommended by an associate who assured me in confidence of your ability and reliability to prosecute a transaction of great magnitude involving a pending business transaction requiring maximum confidence in the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Ltd (NNPCL) here in Nigeria It's a private business which has to do greatly with your support that is why I decided to contact you if we could discuss more about it. Get back to me with your name and a valid phone number for more information. Regards, Dr Yusuf Usman

1 0