Hello, I think it it overall a good idea but as we say the road to hell is paved on good intentions. On my perspective a lot of SPs that do not want to deploy IPv6 do this also because they do not understand and grasp IPv6 overall, or are scared of deployment ease of use. If a charging scheme would favor IPv4 over IPv6 I feel that it could deployed so badly just to avoid the extra costs that it could give a bad example of deployment (the classical: disable IPv6 if you have a problem with your <insert here something totally unrelated>). And might make more people skeptical. We should also not forget that some vendors are incompatible with IPv6, like for example a lot of IoT (oven, washing machine,...). And this is sometimes a reason whys IPv6 cannot sometimes be deployed. I do believe that the road to IPv6 start at the consumer's door and by convincing them and vendor that IPv6 is great we might get a better IPv6 deployment. I do believe that offering resources on IPv6 for anybody to understand might help shift the mindsets. Maybe on why IPv6 doesn't bring less security than NAT or L2 mapping PS : this reflect my (probably bad) personal opinion KR Vincent On 5/25/23 06:19, J Pawlus wrote:

Hello,

I know that it is not for this GM meeting but let us consider different approach to the charging scheme.

IPv4 is dead and any charging scheme based on IPv4 will only extends its agony.

The new model should be based on IPv6 with highest price being paid by LIR without IPv6 implemented to some extent.

The criteria could be:

- allocation of IPv6 space from RIPE - announcement of IPv6 prefix - DNS and revDNS implemented - assignement of IPv6 addresses to some End Users - accessibility of LIR Web Page via IPv6

This approach will clearly increase the speed of IPv6 popularity. Technically, it has been (or is being) done by RIPE to check maturity of a LIR with IPv6.

This will also have an impact on LIR End Users if they are told that they could pay more if they did not move to IPv6.

At the the end some thoughts on current category Model

- the ratio of an price increase/decrease for highest and lowest category is certainly not a small step or evolutionary change for LIRs in high categories - All IPv4 allocations has been done with RIPE approval in accordance to relevant polices at that time. - Most IPv4 allocations has been done in times when such thing as NAT did not exist.

Best regards,

Jerzy Pawlus

P.S. Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe%40kaminot.net

Hi. Ipv4 will be "dead", when big owners of IPv4 resources start to return it and nobody else want to take it. Do you see it? NO? So lets understand - it will be live until you will not start to pay for it. It is normal evolution. "Die" only that is not needed. Serbulov Dmitry

Hello,

I know that it is not for this GM meeting but let us consider different approach to the charging scheme.

IPv4 is dead and any charging scheme based on IPv4 will only extends its agony.

The new model should be based on IPv6 with highest price being paid by LIR without IPv6 implemented to some extent.

The criteria could be:

- allocation of IPv6 space from RIPE - announcement of IPv6 prefix - DNS and revDNS implemented - assignement of IPv6 addresses to some End Users - accessibility of LIR Web Page via IPv6

This approach will clearly increase the speed of IPv6 popularity. Technically, it has been (or is being) done by RIPE to check maturity of a LIR with IPv6.

This will also have an impact on LIR End Users if they are told that they could pay more if they did not move to IPv6.

At the the end some thoughts on current category Model

- the ratio of an price increase/decrease for highest and lowest category is certainly not a small step or evolutionary change for LIRs in high categories - All IPv4 allocations has been done with RIPE approval in accordance to relevant polices at that time. - Most IPv4 allocations has been done in times when such thing as NAT did not exist.

Best regards,

Jerzy Pawlus

P.S. Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/sdy%40a-n-t.ru