Hi all! I support Brett's suggestions! Very symbolic - access to sites and APIs only on IPv6 sockets! I would like to draw the community's attention to the goals of revising the current funding scheme. The main goal is to efficiently utilize IPv4 address space when it is scarce. If there are really no “free” addresses, there is no point in changing anything. We will invent 15 categories, introduce thresholds, but it will be of no use. The addresses have never existed and will never appear. With frantic demand and such prices for rent and purchase of IPv4, we can hardly economically force organizations that do not use addresses to give them up and return them to the pool for distribution. What is even scarier is that these owners may not make any money on their /16 unused blocks. If the entire membership fee is determined by the number of resources, it would be more like RIPE NCC's commercial activities. But on the other hand, we could fund part of the RIPE NCC budget with a fee that would be based on the number of /24 IP networks managed by a single RIPE member. It would be linear and simple. According to the provided report we are 21248 and we manage 3081702 subnets /24 IPv4. If 10% of the RIPE NCC budget is formed from these contributions calculated on IPv4 networks, it turns out: 21248*1500*0.1/3081702 - 1 EURO per network /24 per year. If you have an insane number of networks that you don't use, it will be very uncomfortable.... But as I understand it that is our main goal, to get the network holders who don't use them to return IPv4 in pool. They will either saturate the market and the value of the networks will fall or simply return them to the pool of unused ones. It would be very interesting to hear the opinion of these first members of RIPE. Best regards, Mikhail Mayorov, LIR with 146 /24 IPv4 total allocated On 28.05.2025 11:21, Brett Sheffield wrote:
If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4.
RIPE doesn't have the power to do that for the whole Internet, but it can send a clear message by removing IPv4 access to all RIPE services (API, control panel etc.).
There's no reason not to do this. All RIPE members have IPv6, and those that haven't got themselves sorted can be given 12 months to do so.
Taking a (mostly symbolic) action like this sends a clear signal and will likely be picked up by tech media outlets. It's something we *can* do as an organisation.
Any objections?
Cheers,
Brett