NAT does not allow end to end connectivity. And if this discussion isn't about transitioning to IPv6, then the existence of NAT is not a valid argument either. IPv6 was created as a solution to the IPv4 shortage. NAT was created as a means to postpone the problem solved by IPv6. It's funny that the similar arguments come mostly from entities who failed to implement IPv6 even after a quarter of a century. Although arguments are being made that this debate is not about the transition to IPv6, arguments are then being made about how to throw out some more IPv4 "somewhere". Obligatory efforts to revive a dead horse. No, the debate is about RIPE funding. And if each member wants to have the same weight of his vote, they should contribute to RIPE budget equally. Or let's make RIPE a joint stock company, Each asset will correspond to one share. The vote of shareholders holding more shares will have greater weight. That's fair solution. - Daniel On 5/31/25 2:58 AM, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's a university or a company. Why does a university need tens of thousands of IPv4 addresses in the age of NAT? They may well return most of the resources. In the end, let them look for sponsors. At a price of 3-5 euros at the beginning per /24 per year, none of them will go broke. --- Serbulov Dmitry
One of the holders of large blocks are universities. The're not earning milions - they aren't doing business. They only existed at a time when class-B allocation was the norm. And often on the internet they were before the internet started to be really interesting for business...