Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced.
On 2 Jun 2026, at 10:20, Chano Klinck Andersen wrote:
It’s interesting how often the assumption is made that IPv4 addresses will be returned if they cost more to hold on to.
Well, I don’t see how such a change would make it worse than what we see today? For a lot of organizations, the ~€2-3k they have to pay for their multiple /16’s or whatever that they don’t really need, is a rounding error in a lot of budgets (and “a couple of /16’s is being generous — some have WAY more that they barely use). But for a small ISP with a /24 or whatever, the ~€2-3k+++ is starting to actually matter in their total budget (I know because I’m one of them).
The way I see it, they will not be returned. Instead, they will be sold/leased to the highest bidder. Higher fees to RIPE NCC will make IPv4 addresses more valuable as an asset, which in turn would raise the market price.
That assumption only applies to those who are already leasing out excess address space they own… and they might also re-consider if their fee to RIPE would increase significantly. That would be the same logic as landlords in some countries that are selling their rental properties due to increased loan interest (aka its not profitable anymore). I don’t know if you still don’t have to pay for legacy address space, but that used to be the case. That’s literally zero incentive to do anything but “sit on it” (unless you speculate to sell it off, as many also have done). And those organizations that do register, can get away with the equivalent of PA-as-PI address space via sponsoring LIR (AFAIK) with essentially zero cost as well (compared to the current price of being a LIR). Ironically, for those ISPs that have “a lot of resources”, the “per resource”-model for sponsoring LIR would be more fair than the current flat-fee (i.e. they would have to pay more than they currently do via the flat-fee). I also know of individuals with /16 as PI via sponsored LIR. They pay like €150 or whatever, and use it for “shits & giggles” (sure they use *some* part of it for labbing or whatever, but still). Individuals/organizations that have these amounts of resources that are not strictly needed would for sure either a) sell, or b) return to the pool, if they had to pay “accordingly” based on their resource size.
Instead of trying to reclaim IPv4 addresses (which I don’t believe is going to happen in any meaningful capacity), what about trying to figure out how we can complete the transition to IPv6, making IPv4 addresses irrelevant and ending this yearly recurring discussion once and for all?
Even if we do at some point, the dual-stack scenario is still going to be there for many decades still. Sure, we’re at a better place than just a few years back, but it’s going to take time. A long time.
The only reason, as I see it, why some members want the tiered or fee per IPv4 address model is because they can’t get the IPv4 addresses they need. If we had all just transitioned to IPv6 a long time ago, when the problem became apparent and before the last /8 was used up, no one would be complaining about the charging scheme the way they are today.
I simply want it because it’s fair to pay more for more things. If you want 100 cars, you have to pay for 100 cars. As a consultant I have worked for more organizations than I can count that has way more IPv4-resources than they would ever need. And they just sit on it because it doesn’t cost them anything. Some of them are universities that historically had a flat, one-VRF network, zero firewall, and “fully open for everyone due to being research oriented” with public IPs on every device. That was fine historically, and I don’t blame them. However, most of these have now transitioned to fully segregated networks with firewall and NAT-boxes due to the increased need for cyber security. As part of that change, many of them started to use RFC1918 address space. The old argument that “we use our public addresses because then we don’t need to have expensive NAT boxes” are no longer valid. But do they do anything about the excess IPv4 address space they have? No, they just keep it because it’s essentially zero-cost for them, even if they literally don’t use it anymore (or maybe they use a couple of /24’s of their multiple /16’s as NAT pool). Should they return it to adhere to RIPE policies? Of course. But there’s no way to reliably check if they actually use it or not. Which is part of the problem.
Prior to IPv4 run-out, we rarely ever discussed the fees, but since running out, we have the same discussion, with the same arguments, and the same result (no change at all) every year.
I don’t technically care about the lack of IPv4 address space, and the need to return it. Its just a nice way to solve several problems; * Make sure that you pay for the service you get according to the size/value (ASN/IPv4/IPv6-resources) * Give good monetary incentive to return unneeded resources to RIPE (or sell it, both solves the problem that they don’t have to pay for it anymore) * Reduce the cost for smaller LIRs and increase it for the bigger LIRs (pay more for more things)
Furthermore, RIPE NCC is a membership association. In many associations, members pay the same fee even if they make different levels of use of the shared facilities or services. I have rarely seen associations require members to pay based on their wealth or exact usage of shared resources. I’ve seen differentiated prices for kids vs. adults, but that’s about it.
If we only received equal service (whois, etc), then I would agree with your argument. But that membership also gives you access to a resource that has a real-life monetary value, and the more you have of it, the more valuable is it. There is no way around that fact, no matter what you argue.
The discussion on RIPE NCC providing more than just barebones registry services, the way I see it, is really a question of “for the good of the internet community as a whole” vs. “for the good of my bottom line”.
I agree (hence why I said I like the idea of a lot of these extra services). But they still benefit a big international ISP more than a small regional one. And the big international ISP usually has a lot more money, so having to pay 10x or even 100x the current LIR fee would in most cases be unproblematic (in some cases just a rounding error on their budget). I’m not saying “pay more for more resources” will be without problems. But I think it will be a LOT better than the current price model. -- Joachim
The discussion seems to go round and round on the "need addresses, I think it is unfair that many have such but I do not, perhaps membership fees could be a interesting way to shoehorn some to the pool, I could then have some and it would be fair" topic. I really don't think RIPE NCC membership fees should be designed as if they were a taxation scheme based on the number of addresses assigned. Neither should RIPE NCC membership fees implement Pigouvian taxation to encourage returning of IPv4 addresses. I call it such as it has been implied that the market does not work, and there are calls for the "regulatory body" (RIPE who handed them out) to do something about it in the form of changing membership fee charging structure. The problem seems to be more that there doesn't seem to be a willingness to pay while the market itself seems to be efficient, has price discovery, has liquidity, and there are many participants on both sides. 🙂 Kaj ________________________________ From: Joachim Tingvold via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2026 21:15 To: Chano Klinck Andersen <cka@evercall.dk> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals - result announced. On 2 Jun 2026, at 10:20, Chano Klinck Andersen wrote: It’s interesting how often the assumption is made that IPv4 addresses will be returned if they cost more to hold on to. Well, I don’t see how such a change would make it worse than what we see today? For a lot of organizations, the ~€2-3k they have to pay for their multiple /16’s or whatever that they don’t really need, is a rounding error in a lot of budgets (and “a couple of /16’s is being generous — some have WAY more that they barely use). But for a small ISP with a /24 or whatever, the ~€2-3k+++ is starting to actually matter in their total budget (I know because I’m one of them). The way I see it, they will not be returned. Instead, they will be sold/leased to the highest bidder. Higher fees to RIPE NCC will make IPv4 addresses more valuable as an asset, which in turn would raise the market price. That assumption only applies to those who are already leasing out excess address space they own… and they might also re-consider if their fee to RIPE would increase significantly. That would be the same logic as landlords in some countries that are selling their rental properties due to increased loan interest (aka its not profitable anymore). I don’t know if you still don’t have to pay for legacy address space, but that used to be the case. That’s literally zero incentive to do anything but “sit on it” (unless you speculate to sell it off, as many also have done). And those organizations that do register, can get away with the equivalent of PA-as-PI address space via sponsoring LIR (AFAIK) with essentially zero cost as well (compared to the current price of being a LIR). Ironically, for those ISPs that have “a lot of resources”, the “per resource”-model for sponsoring LIR would be more fair than the current flat-fee (i.e. they would have to pay more than they currently do via the flat-fee). I also know of individuals with /16 as PI via sponsored LIR. They pay like €150 or whatever, and use it for “shits & giggles” (sure they use some part of it for labbing or whatever, but still). Individuals/organizations that have these amounts of resources that are not strictly needed would for sure either a) sell, or b) return to the pool, if they had to pay “accordingly” based on their resource size. Instead of trying to reclaim IPv4 addresses (which I don’t believe is going to happen in any meaningful capacity), what about trying to figure out how we can complete the transition to IPv6, making IPv4 addresses irrelevant and ending this yearly recurring discussion once and for all? Even if we do at some point, the dual-stack scenario is still going to be there for many decades still. Sure, we’re at a better place than just a few years back, but it’s going to take time. A long time. The only reason, as I see it, why some members want the tiered or fee per IPv4 address model is because they can’t get the IPv4 addresses they need. If we had all just transitioned to IPv6 a long time ago, when the problem became apparent and before the last /8 was used up, no one would be complaining about the charging scheme the way they are today. I simply want it because it’s fair to pay more for more things. If you want 100 cars, you have to pay for 100 cars. As a consultant I have worked for more organizations than I can count that has way more IPv4-resources than they would ever need. And they just sit on it because it doesn’t cost them anything. Some of them are universities that historically had a flat, one-VRF network, zero firewall, and “fully open for everyone due to being research oriented” with public IPs on every device. That was fine historically, and I don’t blame them. However, most of these have now transitioned to fully segregated networks with firewall and NAT-boxes due to the increased need for cyber security. As part of that change, many of them started to use RFC1918 address space. The old argument that “we use our public addresses because then we don’t need to have expensive NAT boxes” are no longer valid. But do they do anything about the excess IPv4 address space they have? No, they just keep it because it’s essentially zero-cost for them, even if they literally don’t use it anymore (or maybe they use a couple of /24’s of their multiple /16’s as NAT pool). Should they return it to adhere to RIPE policies? Of course. But there’s no way to reliably check if they actually use it or not. Which is part of the problem. Prior to IPv4 run-out, we rarely ever discussed the fees, but since running out, we have the same discussion, with the same arguments, and the same result (no change at all) every year. I don’t technically care about the lack of IPv4 address space, and the need to return it. Its just a nice way to solve several problems; * Make sure that you pay for the service you get according to the size/value (ASN/IPv4/IPv6-resources) * Give good monetary incentive to return unneeded resources to RIPE (or sell it, both solves the problem that they don’t have to pay for it anymore) * Reduce the cost for smaller LIRs and increase it for the bigger LIRs (pay more for more things) Furthermore, RIPE NCC is a membership association. In many associations, members pay the same fee even if they make different levels of use of the shared facilities or services. I have rarely seen associations require members to pay based on their wealth or exact usage of shared resources. I’ve seen differentiated prices for kids vs. adults, but that’s about it. If we only received equal service (whois, etc), then I would agree with your argument. But that membership also gives you access to a resource that has a real-life monetary value, and the more you have of it, the more valuable is it. There is no way around that fact, no matter what you argue. The discussion on RIPE NCC providing more than just barebones registry services, the way I see it, is really a question of “for the good of the internet community as a whole” vs. “for the good of my bottom line”. I agree (hence why I said I like the idea of a lot of these extra services). But they still benefit a big international ISP more than a small regional one. And the big international ISP usually has a lot more money, so having to pay 10x or even 100x the current LIR fee would in most cases be unproblematic (in some cases just a rounding error on their budget). I’m not saying “pay more for more resources” will be without problems. But I think it will be a LOT better than the current price model. -- Joachim
Am 02.06.26 um 20:15 schrieb Joachim Tingvold via members-discuss:
On 2 Jun 2026, at 10:20, Chano Klinck Andersen wrote:
It’s interesting how often the assumption is made that IPv4 addresses will be returned if they cost more to hold on to.
Well, I don’t see how such a change would make it worse than what we see today?
That's an easy one to answer: IPv4 dealers will slap the extra cost onto their sales price, so as to keep their profit margin. Their buyers will continue to buy from *them*, rather than waiting to obtain IPv4 space from RIPE, because the price and delay comparisons between the two have merely shifted, not changed fundamentally. Those who "sit on unused address space" will be more tempted than ever to sell it - on the market, not handing it to RIPE, of course - for the increased price. Which they may or may not find a *compelling* reason to. (Sure, if you were to *quintuple* the price in one fell swoop ...) End result, IPv4 has gotten that much more expensive for *everyone*, regardless of how much they're an upstanding Internet citizen opposed to the market approach. In a nutshell, you *cannot* make a resource cheaper or easier to obtain by slapping an extra fee onto a part of its lifecycle, whether you succeed in affecting *all* users that way or just a part of them. If that were possible, gasoline taxation, carbon certificates etc. etc. would be threatened not to work as intended. Discuss IPv4 pricing as a means to redistribute the cost of RIPE among the members, if you want, but it's *not* going to make new addresses rain down on said members. You need a means of *actually forcefully taking the limited resource away from "abusers"* to succeed with that, and RIPE is not and does not want to be that, at least not according to their recent statements. Kind regards, -- Jochen Bern Systemingenieur Binect GmbH
Am Donnerstag, 4. Juni 2026, 19:05:00 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Jochen Bern:
Their buyers will continue to buy from *them*, rather than waiting to obtain IPv4 space from RIPE, because the price and delay comparisons between the two have merely shifted, not changed fundamentally. hmm, i did the opposite...
And i got -2 years ago - the recommendation from colleagues to create sereval LIRs just to get a single /24 (merging into one existing LIR account to save money after the minimum merge window) to rent or sell it later. "Many of us did and do that...". I just can imagine how many LIRs until today are secondary accounts of larger LIRs (which includes their ability to vote "multiple times" btw.)
Those who "sit on unused address space" will be more tempted than ever to sell it - on the market, not handing it to RIPE, of course - for the increased price. for first - it makes no big difference at the end me if they sell it or give it to RIPE as the current market prices orient on the LIR cost plus waiting until merging fees plus some profit.
Which they may or may not find a *compelling* reason to. (Sure, if you were to *quintuple* the price in one fell swoop ...) This seems economically incorrect and you dont take into account the fuller market picture including demand and market available resources.
If the amount of unused IPv4 space getting to market getting up, prices will go down because the demand will not grow with higher prices, but the costs to hold unusued and unrented ressources will. Speculating with the reource is getting less interesting then today. The amount of available IP space to rent for overpriced today is way over the demand for such a product. Lot of holders sit on their IP space hoping to get it rented per some agency or selled even more expensive or at least more profitable after all in the future. But to be true: i personally know several very large and old companies holding IP space from very early RIPE times in huge amounts (i.e. /16), while practically using few percent of it (1-2 /24) and by consolidating would need even much less. If costs would significaantly go up to them, it would make pressure to change the space for smaller space or at least sell (or rent) more space out to the market, leading to lower prices. With higher fees pressure to give up such ressources will go up. cheers, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi, On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 01:55:57AM +0200, Niels Dettenbach via members-discuss wrote:
But to be true: i personally know several very large and old companies holding IP space from very early RIPE times in huge amounts (i.e. /16), while practically using few percent of it (1-2 /24) and by consolidating would need even much less. If costs would significaantly go up to them, it would make pressure to change the space for smaller space or at least sell (or rent) more space out to the market, leading to lower prices.
If they would seriously care about *monetary* incentives, they could just sell off the /16 - at the current rate of about US$ 30 for a clean network, that would be roughly 2 million US$. Quite a big carrot.
With higher fees pressure to give up such ressources will go up.
For the stick to reach that level of carrotness, the prices would need to go up to fairly insane heights - and the NCC doesn't actually need that much money (though I'm sure they would find interesting uses for it). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Am Freitag, 5. Juni 2026, 15:27:45 UTC+00:00:01 schrieben Sie:
If they would seriously care about *monetary* incentives, they could just sell off the /16 - at the current rate of about US$ 30 for a clean network, that would be roughly 2 million US$. Quite a big carrot. Gert, i remember you brougt that argument in the past, but i experience the opposite. As you might understand, i'm not allowed to provide company names, but it should be relatively easy to scan the networks for statistical example traffic or at least IPs "up".
I would bet others here know companies the same situation as well... These companies are typically large enterprises today with cash flows of billions (! per year - but are not IT or Telco companies which may really require or utilize such large alocations/assignements today. I even know some of the responsible persons in few of that companies in person / worked with them and had discussions with 2 of. While i just can imagine about the whole picture behind, they have no interest in downsizing their paid allocations as the income from renting out would usually not help their department while the higher levels don't know about the value of the address space or do niot want the overhead or operational risks "just" to get money from a foreign business model in. As i said, these are not IT nor Telco companies familiar with maintaining own "IT businesses". They are in avery different situation when they have to explain rising costs within their department... or in short: they seems to big to be flexible enough to use renting out or sell IP space to get some additional income in on a business field foreign to them. Expecting you are working in IT / Telco industry only, there is probably a significantly different mindset...ß) cheers, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
-----Original Message----- From: Jochen Bern <ripe@binect.de> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 19:05
Am 02.06.26 um 20:15 schrieb Joachim Tingvold via members-discuss:
On 2 Jun 2026, at 10:20, Chano Klinck Andersen wrote:
It’s interesting how often the assumption is made that IPv4 addresses will be returned if they cost more to hold on to.
This assumption implies neglecting the cost of re-obtaining an increasingly scarce resource, should you need it later on. That's the difference between finite and infinite supply of a resource. And even if you decide to let go of it, most will sell instead of handing back to RIPE for free.
Well, I don’t see how such a change would make it worse than what we see today?
That's an easy one to answer:
...
End result, IPv4 has gotten that much more expensive for *everyone*, regardless of how much they're an upstanding Internet citizen opposed to the market approach.
Does being an "upstanding Internet citizen" require to be "opposed to the market approach"? I don't think so. We just have to accept that the industry has matured and the times of the wild west and the gold rush have passed. "I want everything for free" is not a sustaining business model.
Discuss IPv4 pricing as a means to redistribute the cost of RIPE among the members, if you want, but it's *not* going to make new addresses rain down on said members. You need a means of *actually forcefully taking the limited resource away from "abusers"* to succeed with that, and RIPE is not and does not want to be that, at least not according to their recent statements.
Very true. And this would be the "cry for a strongman". We don't need another dictator. Democracy works, given how tight the vote was. Go vote! Accept the mechanics of the market! Live with the results! And stop whining. RIPE very rightfully doesn't go down that road to regulatory monopoly hell. They would expose themselves to all sorts of legal proceedings. Beste Grüße/Best regards, -- Ulf Kieber
Am 05.06.26 um 13:49 schrieb Ulf Kieber via members-discuss:
-----Original Message----- From: Jochen Bern <ripe@binect.de>
End result, IPv4 has gotten that much more expensive for *everyone*, regardless of how much they're an upstanding Internet citizen opposed to the market approach.
Does being an "upstanding Internet citizen" require to be "opposed to the market approach"?
Well, in the specific guise of "IPv4 shouldn't be sold off, but returned to RIPE", it implies at least abstaining from the market approach *yourself*.
RIPE very rightfully doesn't go down that road to regulatory monopoly hell. They would expose themselves to all sorts of legal proceedings.
... because they're actually *not* prosecutor, judge, and executioner on these matters, but rather very much subject to litigation if a commercial entity (with deeper pockets) accuses them of unduly interfering with their business model (formulated way-back-when things were a dime a /12). Am 04.06.26 um 01:55 schrieb Niels Dettenbach:
Am Donnerstag, 4. Juni 2026, 19:05:00 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Jochen Bern:
Their buyers will continue to buy from *them*, rather than waiting to obtain IPv4 space from RIPE, because the price and delay comparisons between the two have merely shifted, not changed fundamentally.
hmm, i did the opposite...
"The opposite"? Do you mean that you *used* to buy IPv4 space, but have *stopped* doing so *without* any financial penalty having been added so far? If so, I'm sure that RIPE would like to hear details about your motivation there.
And i got -2 years ago - the recommendation from colleagues to create sereval LIRs just to get a single /24 (merging into one existing LIR account to save money after the minimum merge window) to rent or sell it later. "Many of us did and do that...".
You already made it quite clear that the historic handling of IPv4 does not meet your definition of "fair use". Now you're adding mention of a mechanism that was in action for an even smaller stretch of history, and is *guaranteed* not to make a reappearance. Again, "feel guilty for what happened in the past" is not considered an integral part of market mechanisms; you need a governing authority dishing out penalties after the fact to tweak capitalism that way.
I just can imagine how many LIRs until today are secondary accounts of larger LIRs (which includes their ability to vote "multiple times" btw.)
IIRC it *was* clarified on this list, a couple weeks ago, that it's one vote per *member*, not LIR.
Which they may or may not find a *compelling* reason to. (Sure, if you were to *quintuple* the price in one fell swoop ...)
This seems economically incorrect and you dont take into account the fuller market picture including demand and market available resources.
If the amount of unused IPv4 space getting to market getting up, prices will go down because the demand will not grow with higher prices, but the costs to hold unusued and unrented ressources will. Speculating with the reource is getting less interesting then today.
The only parties "speculating" with IPv4 addresses would be squatters holding onto them long term with no intent of (immediately) using them themselves, but planning to sell them later on. I was under the impression that the market would not *exist* if demand didn't exceed supply, at least on the timeliness front. Your impression seems to be diametrically different:
The amount of available IP space to rent for overpriced today is way over the demand for such a product. Lot of holders sit on their IP space hoping to get it rented per some agency or selled even more expensive or at least more profitable after all in the future.
I suppose we would need more data, like the "proper use" audits RIPE did quite a while ago, to get that one nailed down ... But, for the sake of the argument, let's say that prices get raised to the point where everyone and his router would want to sell their stock. You called them "overpriced *today*". How much of the demand would evaporate because the prospective buyers cannot *afford* to get the addresses they'd need anymore - then, *and for eternity*¹, as you don't present a mechanism other than "*keep* the price up" (the same price you assume to *fall* as the eventual result) to prevent the *return* of the market? ¹ OK, for the remaining life expectancy of IPv4, to be precise. Kind regards, -- Jochen Bern Systemingenieur Binect GmbH
participants (6)
-
Gert Doering -
Joachim Tingvold -
Jochen Bern -
Kaj Niemi -
kieber＠xoo.net -
Niels Dettenbach