-----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