Rather than bickering over the last scraps of IPv4, saving smaller LIRs a few hundred euros, attempting to somehow screw the older LIRs, or three at the same time. Wouldn't our time be better spent working out ways to improve end user adoption of IPv6?
I'd like to propose RIPE set up a fund (summer of code style) for the implementation of native IPv6 support in open-source software (such as cloudsta k, etc) and simplifying end-user adoption. Perhaps we should even offer a free public IPv6 tunnel service for natural persons similar to the service currently offered by hurricane electric.
-Tim
On 09/22/2016 01:57 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:
I'm not saying that a discussion is bad, but I'm simply saying that most of the discussions are being had are not based on fact.
To my knowledge RIPE doesn't have a list of members categorized by assignment size, so this is something that someone would need to parse the RIPE db for, it's all public record so it can be done.
Counting all allocated IPv4 each LIR has, and converting it back to CIDR:
CIDR Number of LIRs
<= /24 1
<= /23 4
<= /22 6051
<= /21 1582
<= /20 1638
<= /19 1547
<= /18 1040
<= /17 709
<= /16 386
<= /15 293
<= /14 134
<= /13 110
<= /12 80
<= /11 64
<= /10 25
<= /9 14
<= /8 6
<= /7 2
IPv6 only 241
If we were to take ARIN's fees as example where up to and including /20 is less expensive than RIPE's current fees, 9276 out of the 13686 LIRs with IPv4 would pay less.
Not just new ones...
Total income would be similar.
Yours sincerely,
Floris Bos
----
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/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.