On 2016-09-13 20:57, Chris Smith wrote:
It seems clear to me that LIR's that have large IPv4 resources are at an economic advantage against LIR's with small IPv4 resources.
Whilst that might be true in your business model, not everyone is using your model for their organisation
The current Small, Medium, Large model seems to be setup with this in mind.
Ultimately RIPEs "job" is to maintain a list (DB) and as a community, set policy for getting things onto that list. Each LIRs "cost" to RIPE is administrative (membership management, sending letters etc) and _somewhat_ proportionate to how much data they have in that database (and how much support/manual-work they need) The numbers in the "starting ip" and "ending ip" fields don't change that cost, effectively a /32 "costs" no more or less than a /8 - 1 record in a db is 1 record in a db
Goal: Kill off IPv4 by 2025?
A goal to have all "publicly accessible internet devices accessible over ipv6" makes sense, but there is (and never will be) a "need" to kill off ipv4.
I believe a full switch to IPv6 is everyone's long term interest.
It's certainly not in "everyones" interest - there are millions of IPv4-only devices out there, it's not in the owners interest to have to buy (even if it was possible to replace) new ones.
If another LIR has a hundred times more IPv4 addresses than we do, then I'd expect them to pay 100 times (or more) than we do.
And therein lies the difference in thinking - if one LIR uses 100 times the "resources" than another then yes, a larger bill could be appropriate. But a range of ips is ultimatley just "1 resource" - it doesn't matter about the size of that range. Making IPv6 resources "cheaper" might be an incentive to adoption, but I doubt it. Getting the bulk of "end users" on IPv6 is (and always has been) the only real way to drive usage up, and in general end-users neither know nor care, IP is IP is IP at the end of the day Rob