Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2025 00:02:54 +0200

Hi Daniel,

If you take a carefull look about the LIR without IPv4 allocations or a 
single /24, you would get the IPv6 deployement issue isn't from small or 
recents LIR, but caused by operators of big IPv4 pools. They have no 
interests to deploy more IPv6 until there is some incensitive to do so, 
like increasing IPv4 operation costs. Category-based or per /24 
allocation charging schemes aim to favorise this transition.
If big players would be less reluctant to provide IPv6 access to their 
services, new and small LIR wouldn't even care to get IPv4, and there 
wouldn't be this discussion every year.

About the rest of this message it's pure non-sens : changing the way 
membership fees is calculated isn't about a retroactive rule, it's just 
a change in the current and futur rules. This has nothing to do with 
communism envy, but more about avoiding to fall into exacerbated 
speculation over a limited and almost mandatory resource, and avoiding 
market locks and monopolies. This kind of market lock is only good for 
big player shareolders and will deserve everyone else on the long run.
Yes there is a part of frustration, but more because of this market 
lock, currently making it hard to be a new player (even an insinifiant 
one). This is nothing like your local bakery which could be sometime out 
of stock during few hours, it's about what do we want Internet to become 
in general : a guarded market by few big players, deciding for everyone 
else how we should use internet and for what and making money by just 
providing this limited resource, or still to have the current diversity 
of peering, services and usages ?

Kind regards,

Le 31/05/2025 à 21:21, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss a écrit :
> Do I understand correctly that you are calling for rules that will 
> retroactively affect previous allocations?
> 
> Retroactivity is one of the basic things that I really can't imagine in 
> a civilized legal world. Yes - someone was lucky to come first. So now 
> we're going to punish them with something because others came?
> 
> These debates remind me a bit of communist envy. The situation we have 
> is not an "exploit". It's just a consequence of history. And of course, 
> mistakes that just happened. You can't get back time.
> 
> And among other things, one of the things that I think is that when you 
> start pushing too hard on the saw, the water will be thrown out with the 
> bathtub.
> 
> You won't get new addresses cheaper. Even those who have had no reason 
> to do so will start speculating with addresses in order to cover their 
> own costs. Of course, this will be reflected in the prices for end 
> customers, even where the (legacy) internet has not been cripled, and I 
> assign public IPs to home connections as well.
> 
> I understand the frustration of late arrivals. But that's life. If you 
> come to the supermarket too late, there won't be any bread left for you. 
> Starting to loot the homes of those who arrived earlier isn't a solution 
> to the problem. And if the capacity of the bakery in the supermarket is 
> objectively insufficient, a more efficient one needs to be built. And in 
> this paraphrase, we all know very well what the better bakery is...
> 
> And those who are blocking the launch of these new bakery because they 
> stick to bread from the old oven are real frogs on the spring. They're 
> the reason why second-hand markets make more money with bread than our 
> supermarket.
> 
> End of paraphrases. if you look at LIR, which're crying as much as they 
> can... so they're in no hurry to implement IPv6 (some haven't even 
> started their prefix propagation). The transition will not happen 
> overnight by magic. Yes, these transitional phases are pain somewhat  - 
> and we have experienced this many times. But it's necessary not to cry 
> and start.
> 
> Any attempts to generate additional IPv4 addresses into RIR free pool 
> are just a waste of time. You won't solve the problem, at most you'll 
> postpone it for a while. It doesn't make sense.
> 
> And all these debates about charging scheme changes are actually just 
> attempts to get those legacy addresses. This is evident from many 
> comments. Everyone thinking rationally knows that in a few years the 
> transition will happen anyway and all IPv4 will be useless.
> 
> The long-term sustainability of RIPE cannot be built on IPv4 
> allocations. Charging based on IPv4 allocation is only a short-term 
> solution.
> 
> - Daniel
> 
> On 5/31/25 8:47 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
>> Why is an old LIR allowed to exploit his membership like this?
> 
> -----
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription 
> options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members- 
> discuss.ripe.net/
> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account 
> with the email matching your subscription before you can change your 
> settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/ 
> mailman-3-migration/