August 2011 - members-discuss

New Charging Scheme: Update from the RIPE NCC
by Axel Pawlik 25 Aug '11

25 Aug '11

Dear all, Three weeks ago we have asked you for feedback on our ideas for a renewed Charging Scheme for 20112. In the intervening time, you have discussed the matter, and even conducting a mini-survey. Thank you very much for this input; the RIPE NCC Executive Board and staff have followed the discussion closely. We have noticed a fair number of remarks about our choice to base the Charging Scheme on the amount of number resources our members hold, some arguing that IPv4 is about to fade into irrelevance for these purposes. I would like to explain our reasoning a little more... As you know, the RIPE NCC performs quite a number of activities, on a neutral platform, for the benefit of all of our members and the "good of the Internet" at large. IP address allocation is indeed a large part of it; however, activities such as running the RIPE Database, operations of the k-root server clusters, DNSMON, development of measuring tools and similar are examples of "supporting the Internet infrastructure through technical coordination". The current, and long-established Charging Scheme is based on allocations of addresses over time. As IPv4 allocations will indeed be less prominent in the not-too-distant future, we need to ensure that the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme is adapted in a way that ensures the stability of your favorite service organisation. Other requirements are, as we understood from surveys and personal feedback, simplicity, predictability and fairness. We thought long and hard about it, looking for an indication, a yardstick, to measure the benefit that our members derive from our services. Of course there are many options: company turnover, staff numbers, profit and more. Being active in our particular industry, we agreed that the depth to which our members are involved in the "operations of the Internet" is closely related to the benefit they get from our overall service portfolio. How then do you measure "involvement in the operations of the Internet?" This is where we decided to "keep it close to home," assuming that an organisation holding a /8 is likely to be more involved than those holding a /20 or less. And following from this we decided to use address holdings as the yardstick, one benefit being that we all understand this very well. The rest, as they say, is history... We thought it would be good to change as little as possible from the old Charging Scheme principles, carrying over the idea of membership classes. >From the discussions of the last couple of weeks, one opinion that came across quite strongly is the wish to see smaller jumps in between fee categories. Taking that cue, we are now preparing alternatives, to be presented to the Executive Board in September, that are looking at both a larger number of classes, as well as a sliding scale alternative. We'll keep you posted. For now, thank you again for letting us know what you think. Kind regards, Axel Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme - Survey - RESULTS
by Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

Dear members-discuss, please find attached the results of the poll. Highlights: - almost 75% would like a scheme without steep jumps between the categories. - about 60% would give away secondary resources (ASN, IP space for IXP, ...) for free. - 60% (vs. 27%) would support a scheme, that encourages LIRs to return unused IPv4 space. - almost 50% would consider a price of EUR 0.02/(IP*year) as reasonable. - 50% do NOT want per transaction fee. - wide, commercial IPv6 deployment is expected for 2014 or later - 65% think, that PI space should be owned or sponsored by a LIR, only. 50% are willing to support a special, low pricing for these (very) small LIRs. Best regards, Christian

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme - Survey - REMINDER
by Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst 14 Aug '11

14 Aug '11

Dear members-discuss, if you haven't cast your vote, yet, please do now ;-) https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FGKJBQJ 2**7-1 votes so far... ;-) Best regards, Christian

1 0

RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 10 Aug '11

10 Aug '11

don't get me wrong, they're perfectly free to run whatever the fuck they want over -their- networks, and sell it to their customers, just that they should not complain if all of a sudden, facebook, google, porn, and the piratebay etc are no longer on their part of the internet *grin* -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: > The problem is, big players have lots of IPv4 addresses so they don't care > about switching to dual-stack or IPv6. Small LIRs have small networks but > nobody cares about their opinion:) > > Probably charging more $$ to big players will push them to release > not-in-use IPv4 or switch to IPv6 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:14 PM > To: Redi Tela > Cc: 'Brandon Butterworth'; jblessing(a)llnw.com; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > there comes a time where you have to ask: are you running a business, or a > museum :P keeping ipv4 around just for old times sake... oh well.. > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > ========================================================================= > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net > ========================================================================= > <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob > ========================================================================= > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older >> packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of >> older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet. >> >> those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really. >> >> eyeballs -> few well known sites >> >> and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, > or >> die. >> >> and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if > you >> consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet >> ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;) >> >> we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no >> future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing >> models ;), get over it. >> >> >> >> -- >> Greetings, >> >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >> ========================================================================= >> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net >> ========================================================================= >> <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >> ========================================================================= >> >> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: >> >>> Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for >>> years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a > few >>> 'well-known' sites. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net >>> [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] >>> On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth >>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM >>> To: jblessing(a)llnw.com; sven(a)cb3rob.net >>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net >>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >>> >>>> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >>>> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >>>> filter it. >>> >>> Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you >>> eloquently explained previously) >>> >>>> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >>>> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >>>> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated >>> >>> No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. >>> >>> v6 or die. >>> >>>> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need > an >>>> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >>>> don't announce a single ip out of it :P >>> >>> You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point >>> you see. >>> >>> Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non >>> internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping >>> realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any >>> private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it >>> was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history >>> now. >>> >>> brandon >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>> general >>> page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >>> here, >>> you can add or remove addresses. >>> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general >> page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, >> you can add or remove addresses. >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. >

10 11

New Charging Scheme
by Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de) 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

Hello member, my LIR has 2x/18, 1x/19, 1x/17 PA-Allocation. When I look right my membership category will be size L. I have to pay 5000 Euro a year, because I have one /19 over /16. I think the price step from category M to category L is to big. 2500Eur -> 5000Eur You should add a category between M and L. It should have this requirements: IPv4: >/16, <=/14 price should be 3500 Euro every year Its not fair, that I have to pay 5000 Euro, instead 2500 Euro, only I have one /19 to much to met requirements for category M! -- Regards, Marcel Edler

34 61

Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by Ivan M Makarenko 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

Andrey, I am not about increasing expenses for IPv4 holders (M/S). I am not about decreasing expenses for L. I'm just trying to say that I don't believe that any attempts for "IPv6 stimulation" by means of *charging scheme* could be successful. IP transit operators can easily implement IPv6 (because they are "ready") almost right now, but broadband providers will deploy IPv6 according to their internal processes of access network upgrade and billing upgrade (much slower and more expensive). Aren't we say the same things? Okay, I'll say it in other words. If our company were not already being deploy IPv6 on transit and access levels, will we start to look into IPv6 because IPv4 doubles(triples) in price? Well, no. Price is not a point at all, it's irrelevant. The point is *shortage*, and that's my only idea for this messages. Again, the only thing I was talking about is IPv6 deployment stimulus in the context of the charging scheme. But for now, I this idea should be considered off-topic here. Thanks. -- Best regards, Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department. JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme From: Andrey Semenchuk <andrey(a)trifle.net> To: Ivan M Makarenko <I.Makarenko(a)zsttk.ru> Date: Tue Aug 09 2011 13:31:42 GMT+0700 > Ivan M Makarenko wrote: >> Well, if we will reduce IPv4 >> cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get >> nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be >> empty pipes and no content. > You can't popularize IPv6 by volitional action. It's the wrong way. The > broadband operators bear much more expenses than transit operators (and > there's no no contradiction here with your letter). And even when you > understand that the broadband operators bear much more expenses you > still call comunity to increase their expences for IPv4 resources?? > > In this case the only goal for for increasing expences for IPv4 > resources may be the removal of competitors: expenses will be raised for > SMALL/MEDIUM but be decreased for the LARGE. It's not the way IPv6 > deployment should go. And many of members try to pay attention for this > (but I think they have no chance to affect on this because we have (and > had, and will have) a lobby of LAGRE's) > > >> Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - > But the acts are opposite with the words > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >> From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster <hostmaster(a)degnet-gmbh.de> >> To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net >> Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700 >> >>> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM >>>> a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed, >>>> be preferred over more complex methods. >>>> >>> >>> I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all >>> services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra >>> pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4 >>> address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses. >>> >>> As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and >>> do profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these >>> companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6 >>> deployment. >>> >>> The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion: >>> Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any >>> motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most >>> from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these >>> (resources and reserves) by now. >>> 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for >>> extra large companies. >>> >>> 0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for >>> me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon. >>> The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could >>> be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment. >>> >>> -Florian >>> >>> !��'��+yǢ��j)l~�&�� >>> )��جr�,��x%��i��zZ �{hʋ�,�O��Z��jw`��-��ږ��zm��* >>> 颻Z��zw��z��)brJ'ح�"�E׭j) >>> l�w^�+��m�Lj)b��z��]��ޚ��i�kz�s=== >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. > >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by Jamie Stallwood 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

As a small LIR with a single /21 block ("effectively PI"), I'd hate to see any LIR small or big be priced out through punitive charging schemes. I can't see that being good either for the NCC or the RIPE community as a whole, if we weaken the membership base. I think the "wiwi" model, or something similar, has merit. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Ltd M: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood(a)imerja.com NIC: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.

1 0

Re: [#CRF-897-39192]: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

actually, i think you're not doing very well at all, in fact, your techical skills seem to suck, considering that the ripe members ***MAILINGLIST*** has a fuckton of open tickets with your tracking system. so i suggest you remove the ticket system and auto-reply from any mailinglist you're on, including this one. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, allserverhosting wrote: > Brandon Butterworth, > > This email concerns your recent ticket: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme (CRF-897-39192) > > As part of our commitment to improving your customer support experience, we would like to know how you think we are doing. > > You are invited to complete a short satisfaction survey consisting of just a few multiple-choice questions. > > It should take you no more than a minute to complete (we promise!). > > To take the survey, please click on the following link: http://helpdesk.allserverhosting.com/index.php?/Tickets/Survey/Index/CRF-89… > > Your feedback is very important to us and we really appreciate your time. > > Thank you in advance, > > allserverhosting > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Support Center: http://helpdesk.allserverhosting.com/index.php?

2 1

RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 06 Aug '11

06 Aug '11

big players that don't adapt go the way of the dinosaur. thats how things work. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: > The problem is, big players have lots of IPv4 addresses so they don't care > about switching to dual-stack or IPv6. Small LIRs have small networks but > nobody cares about their opinion:) > > Probably charging more $$ to big players will push them to release > not-in-use IPv4 or switch to IPv6 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:14 PM > To: Redi Tela > Cc: 'Brandon Butterworth'; jblessing(a)llnw.com; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > there comes a time where you have to ask: are you running a business, or a > museum :P keeping ipv4 around just for old times sake... oh well.. > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > ========================================================================= > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net > ========================================================================= > <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob > ========================================================================= > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older >> packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of >> older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet. >> >> those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really. >> >> eyeballs -> few well known sites >> >> and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, > or >> die. >> >> and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if > you >> consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet >> ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;) >> >> we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no >> future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing >> models ;), get over it. >> >> >> >> -- >> Greetings, >> >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >> ========================================================================= >> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net >> ========================================================================= >> <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >> ========================================================================= >> >> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: >> >>> Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for >>> years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a > few >>> 'well-known' sites. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net >>> [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] >>> On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth >>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM >>> To: jblessing(a)llnw.com; sven(a)cb3rob.net >>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net >>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >>> >>>> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >>>> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >>>> filter it. >>> >>> Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you >>> eloquently explained previously) >>> >>>> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >>>> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >>>> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated >>> >>> No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. >>> >>> v6 or die. >>> >>>> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need > an >>>> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >>>> don't announce a single ip out of it :P >>> >>> You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point >>> you see. >>> >>> Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non >>> internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping >>> realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any >>> private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it >>> was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history >>> now. >>> >>> brandon >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>> general >>> page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >>> here, >>> you can add or remove addresses. >>> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general >> page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, >> you can add or remove addresses. >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. >

1 0

RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 06 Aug '11

06 Aug '11

Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet. those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really. eyeballs -> few well known sites and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, or die. and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if you consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;) we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing models ;), get over it. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: > Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for > years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a few > 'well-known' sites. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM > To: jblessing(a)llnw.com; sven(a)cb3rob.net > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > >> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >> filter it. > > Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you > eloquently explained previously) > >> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated > > No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. > > v6 or die. > >> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an >> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >> don't announce a single ip out of it :P > > You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point > you see. > > Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non > internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping > realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any > private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it > was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history > now. > > brandon > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. >

1 1