--
Kind regards
Sebastian Becker
Dear colleagues,
I would like to explicitly support Michals position, in particular regarding the proposed discounts for educational institutions, and add an important practical aspect to this discussion.
Many universities and similar institutions received extremely large IPv4 allocations in the pastoften /16 or even multiple /16 blocks. In a significant number of cases, only a very small fraction of these resources (sometimes just one to three /24s) is actually used for their own operational needs today.
At the same time, it is publicly observable that IPv4 address space originating from such legacy allocations is being sold or transferred on the open market via platforms such as ipv4.global, at fully commercial prices (currently on the order of ~30 EUR per IPv4 address). This is not speculation; it is an established and RIPE-compliant transfer market.
In this context, granting fee reductions to organisations that:
hold vast historical IPv4 resources,
use only a minimal portion of them operationally, and
monetise the remainder at market prices,
is difficult to justify from a fairness perspective.
If educational institutions are to benefit from discounted RIPE fees, this should at minimum be conditional upon the substantial return of unused IPv4 address space to the free pool. Without such a mechanism, the proposed model effectively rewards address hoarding while shifting the financial burden onto smaller commercial LIRs, start-ups, and non-profit-adjacent organisations that must both pay full RIPE fees and acquire IPv4 addresses at full market cost.
Absent meaningful IPv4 reclamation, fee discounts for organisations already in possession of disproportionately large legacy allocations appear inequitable and inconsistent with the stated principles of efficient and fair resource distribution.
Kind regards,
Mentor L.
|
|