Hi! What is it, that the majority wants? We (I hope to speak for the majority) want a stable internet, working tools, a voice as a community against organisations and goverments and the assurance that ressources allocated to me are not used anywhere else and stay with me as long I obey the rules. You have to keep in mind, that such a neutral, not for profit body is bound to the environment it is set in. And for the sake of stability I am quite satisfied with the RIPE NCC. Look to the US, environments can change quickly and become unstable especially for NGOs. Matthias Am Samstag, dem 31.05.2025 um 02:14 +0300 schrieb Alexey Berezhnev:
Hi Matthias,
While I understand the argument that RIPE NCC isn’t a trading platform for IPv4 and doesn’t “source” space for members, it’s increasingly clear that the current flat-fee model is disconnected from today’s reality.
Many legacy holders still sit on large unused allocations — not due to actual operational need, but simply because policies let them. In this context, adopting a scale-based model (similar to ARIN’s approach), perhaps with adjustments, seems like a perfectly reasonable and implementable solution.
It’s not about “punishing” anyone. It’s about:
* aligning resource holding with actual cost impact, * encouraging efficient use, and * gently nudging unused space back into circulation — whether by sale, lease, or return.
Clinging to the idea that “IPv4 is over” doesn’t help the market or the community. IPv6 is not yet a substitute — it’s a parallel track. Pretending otherwise just widens the gap between policy and practice.
We don’t need perfection. But we need something better than the status quo.
Regards, Alexey
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 May 2025, at 01:16, Matthias Brumm <matthias@brumm.net> wrote:
Hi,
Actually I have witnessed a bunch of discussions and every time it is coming to the same topic. And I'm my opinion the IPv6 topic is in a way connected.
RIPE NCC has the job -among several other things- to manage resources and give it's members the ability to use these resources. This management has to be done fair and responsible. Given the historical and present circumstances the RIPE NCC has done a very good and responsible job. You have to keep in mind the policies in perspective of the amount of the resources.
IP addresses where allocated more and more conservative until we have come to the present waiting list and market.
Please correct me, if I am wrong. If I have understand correctly RIPE NCC is unable to scale the fees by IP addresses because it is no good to sell. The addresses are distributed to the members as long as the fees are paid and the rules are obeyed. It is regularly checked if the networks are in accordance to the registered purpose. So under any other circumstances no one can pull addresses back from a member and you would not experience this yourself, that someone presumes you are not using addresses and would return them.
You might argue that there are already fees for ASN and PI resources. My understanding is that these are no fees for the resources but the share for management and tools regarding these resources.
So I'm my opinion the IPv6 discussion is related, because IPv4 is over and it is not RIPE NCC's job to source IPv4 to distribute to it's members. IPv6 is the only viable solution to this.
Matthias
Am 30. Mai 2025 21:29:10 MESZ schrieb Denys Fedoryshchenko <nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com>:
Hi all,
I agree with Jean. The pricing discussion keeps getting derailed into IPv6 transition talks. These are two separate issues that need separate discussions. Let's stay on topic about resource holders paying their fair share based on holdings.
On Fri, 2025-05-30 at 19:58 +0300, Jean Salim wrote:
Each time there's a discussion about resource holders paying their fair share according to their resource holdings at RIPE, like other RIR, you take the discussion towards an unrelated subject that is IPv6 transition.
On Fri, 30 May 2025, 19:50 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:38:19PM +0300, Alexey Berezhnev wrote:
Conclusion
Transition to IPv6 is a long-term necessity ??? that much is clear.
After you have deliberated long and exquisitely why it cannot be done, what would you suggest how to achieve said necessity?
Gert Doering -- NetMaster ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/