Dear ,

I completely agree you that we should not base policy on resentment toward those who happened to arrive earlier. IPv4 allocation history is just that—history—and trying to rebalance it now would only lead to unintended consequences.

I also agree that tying fees directly to IPv4 holdings is fundamentally flawed. It reinforces the past instead of preparing for the future. IPv4 still matters today, but charging based on it is at best a short-term patch. In the long run, we need a model aligned with where we want the Internet to go—not where it came from.

In my view, a sustainable approach should separate membership fees from service fees. Service fees should continue to reflect the specific services a member uses, as they do now. But membership fees, instead of being equal for all or based on legacy resource counts, should reflect the member’s actual operational scale and network impact.

Not all LIRs are equal in this regard. Some are small teams managing a few thousand devices, while others operate infrastructure that supports entire countries. If a small LIR fails, a few customers are affected; if a large LIR fails, entire regions could experience disruption. In a community model like RIPE, where we all share responsibility for the health of the Internet, it’s reasonable that larger, more impactful members contribute more.

That said, we must not assume IPv4 quantity equates to impact. IPv4 was once the dominant factor, but we’re trying to build a future based on IPv6. Therefore, a fairer way to assess “network scale” could be based on IPv6 holdings.

Meanwhile, regarding IPv4, instead of using it as a billing anchor, we should use it as a driver for transition. One constructive idea would be to encourage IPv6 adoption in proportion to IPv4 resources held. For example:

• A member holding a /24 to /21 of IPv4 could be expected to also hold at least an IPv6 /28.
• A /20 to /17 IPv4 holder might be expected to hold at least an IPv6 /24.
• A /16 to /13 holder might be expected to hold an IPv6 /20, and so on.

This way, larger IPv4 holders take on a corresponding responsibility to deploy and promote IPv6. Simultaneously, members with large IPv6 holdings (regardless of IPv4 status) would be recognized as operating significant networks and placed in an appropriate membership fee tier.

In this model, we don’t penalize legacy allocations—but we do place expectations and incentives around modern best practices. And we shift financial responsibility in line with actual network impact, not historic luck.

Thanks again for raising these important points. I share your view that we must be forward-looking and realistic—not reactive—and I hope the community can move in that direction.

Best regards,

Chenyang

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/