Dear colleagues, I would like to critically address several points raised by Mr. Walde in his recent message. While the discussion around a fair charging model is essential, the arguments presented are technically inaccurate, operationally naive, and strategically dangerous for the stability of the RIPE NCC ecosystem. 1. “IPv6 is cheaper to implement” This claim may be true in controlled, greenfield environments. However, it completely disregards the reality of mature, production-grade IPv4 infrastructures. For any large-scale operator, IPv6 deployment entails: hardware and software upgrades, dual-stack maintenance, reworking ACLs, DPI, logging systems, and monitoring infrastructure, and additional training, testing, and auditing processes. Furthermore, IPv6 does not replace IPv4 — it supplements it. Dual-stack operation increases both complexity and cost. Labeling IPv6 implementation as “cheaper” is misleading and technically unsound when applied to real-world networks. 2. “Admins don’t understand IPv6 because they only know 255” This statement is dismissive and inappropriate. The limitations in IPv6 adoption stem not from ignorance, but from incomplete vendor support, real-world deployment risks, and lack of commercial pressure to fully transition. Suggesting that professionals who maintain large-scale, high-availability networks lack competence is both unproductive and disrespectful. 3. “Companies should clean up their IPv4 networks” This recommendation ignores the legal, contractual, and technical bindings of many IPv4 deployments. In large organizations — especially carriers, financial institutions, and regulated sectors — reassigning or removing IPv4 resources is not a routine administrative task. It directly impacts: existing customer contracts, upstream/downstream routing policies, and in many cases, legally binding SLAs. For Tier 1 and backbone operators, IPv4 stability is critical. “Cleaning up” networks under these conditions is operationally risky and legally unacceptable. 4. “A red line should be applied to older resources” This is perhaps the most problematic suggestion. Introducing punitive measures based on the age of a resource fundamentally violates the principle of policy neutrality and nondiscrimination. LIRs that have operated for decades under consistent rules cannot and should not be subjected to retroactive penalties. Any such action would severely undermine trust in the RIPE NCC’s governance and open the door to potential legal challenges. 5. “We need a fairer structure” This is the one point where consensus exists. However, fairness is not achieved by arbitrarily penalizing maturity, stability, or historical contribution. Mature LIRs: sustain critical internet infrastructure, carry the operational burden of backward compatibility, and face legal exposure if disruptions occur. A truly fair model would recognize the real cost of maintaining legacy-compatible networks, not attempt to equalize all members through artificial constraints. Conclusion Transition to IPv6 is a long-term necessity — that much is clear. But dismantling or penalizing the IPv4 foundation without realistic migration support will destabilize the very networks that support our global infrastructure today. We should not base future charging structures on oversimplified narratives. They must reflect operational realities, legal risk, and the diverse roles RIPE members play in sustaining internet connectivity. Sincerely, Alexei Berezhnev Managing Director RADIO-FSU/RADIO-MSU NETWORK Sent from my iPhone
On 30 May 2025, at 10:13, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
IT was, is and always will be a field where you always have to learn new things. Deploying IPv6 is not difficult, not these days. If someone says it's hard, they shouldn't be called an admin. That's just a copy-paste monkey relying on twenty-year-old procedures that he simply doesn't want to change. And those who don't have IPv6 deployed much are crying the most. You can often find a lot of other old software from the IT museum around these.
But RIPE is not a service provider in the sense that it should be charged according to the addresses consumed. If so, it would have to get rid of the non-profit label - and also pay taxes relevant for business entities. Being a non-profit means, among other things, treating all its members equally.
All these attempts are just an attempt to ride a dead horse. These discussions are endless. Networks having little IPv4 cry that the world around them is unfair. No, it isn't.
Old LIRs are not responsible for having received more addresses in the past - based on the policies in force at the time. Minimum allocations used to be large and gradually decreased over time. Today's efforts to charge them are in reality just an attempt to punish them. But they just arrived earlier. And unlike some LIRs that have emerged recently, they were not created solely for the purpose of speculating with IPv4 addresses.
And the only thing that will happen in reality, if we force start adresses to be returnet from these old LIRs due to "fair" fees, is that speculators will rush into any freed up space like locusts. We just repeat the same thing we experienced when dividing the last /8 - LIRs founded for the purpose of speculation begin to emerge. Even if it is limited to single resource per legal entity, it is not difficult to establish a shell company. You don't invent a policy that would prevent this. Any rule can be circumvented if there is some interest.
You can't resurrect a dead horse, deal with it. And admins who don't want to learn new things and defending IPv6 deployment are just prolonging this agony.
- Daniel
On 5/29/25 11:24 PM, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote: IPv6 is cheaper to implement, but the transition is a curse for admins. They don't understand it, because they only know 255. Companies should clean up their IPv4 networks. Fees should be fairer for members. We have costs that are rising with the maturity. Yes, perhaps a red line should be applied there. But we're all clear on this point, only because there is a membership charter, and it's not exactly fair. We need to come up with a new fee structure that is fair to all members.
----- 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/