Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Hi, As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described. Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6 services on our networks. If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation. If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if we have no IPv4 registered, we don't get charged anything? We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members. Even though we are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community. Not that I expect it to work that way anyway (creating an LIR with IPv6 allocation and no IPv4 allocation), that's simply not maintainable for RIPE if quite a large number of organisations were to do this, and it may push up costs for the members which do have IPv4 allocations. Which highlights another point - I've noticed there's been no mention or consideration of size of IPv6 allocations when it comes to charging models based on IP allocation. I presume the general membership don't consider this an issue at present due to the vast size of IPv6 address space? What happens for LIRs with only IPv6 space? Why aren't we considering the usage of other resources as well, such as AS number allocations? Also regarding the state of Legacy resources, I raised a ticket to enquire what would happen were we to stop membership. Quoting from the response: [quote] ...so the legacy space is not part of the Internet Registry system. You didn't get it from the RIPE NCC so if you close your LIR you keep it. The IPv6 allocation [...] you did get from the RIPE NCC so if you close your LIR it comes back to us. Your LIR also quailifies [sic] for a /22 of IPv4 and if you closed your LIR after receiving that it would also be returned to us. [/quote] This would imply that actually, RIPE cannot reasonably charge based on size of any Legacy space, because the space doesn't belong to RIPE, and we keep it if we left. By extension, if any charging model based on size of IPv4 allocation includes the Legacy space allocation, then it will make sense for any LIR with legacy space to create a second LIR, separate their legacy and non-legacy space by transferring one to the second LIR, then dropping membership for the LIR with the Legacy space. The remaining LIR with non-legacy space would then be charged less than if it retained all the space. Now this isn't really fair for the LIRs without Legacy space, but from a cost perspective, this would be the logical thing to do for LIRs with Legacy space, especially if they have a large amount of it. So for any proposal to charge based on IPv4 allocation which includes Legacy space, which for above reasons I don't think RIPE can do anyway, I would posture this would not give a fair or desired outcome in the long run, especially for the LIRs without Legacy space. But then, any proposals to charge based on IPv4 allocation which excludes Legacy space, are also arguably not fair either, because those with Legacy space would effectively get a disproportionately cheaper service for what they use, if we decide service charge is to be based on IPv4 usage. So I do not think _any_ proposal to charge based on IPv4 space can give a fair, reasonable, or desired outcome.
Anyway, I believe that implementing a charge that is based on the size of the IPv4 resource allocation is fair and it would line up with RIPE NCC's goal of safeguarding the resources. Whether implementing a cost like the proposed €250/year per /24 or a fee based on categories such as the other RIRs are imposing, the model needs to be changed.
I disagree. I'd rather the costs were distributed based on the costs of providing service to LIRs, which the current charging scheme seems to do quite well, subject to closing loopholes when someone tries to game the system.
I agree with this. The cost model should be based on the cost of providing the actual service, not the size of address space any organisation may have. Because RIPE need to recover the costs of running their service, it would be fairer and more sensible to charge based on how much service is used, not on resource allocated. Of course this brings questions on what defines "service". Number of tickets raised? Number of objects of the various types in the database for that particular LIR? Frequency of database changes? Usage of tools like RIPE Atlas, other APIs? etc. This is assuming we don't keep the current flat rate scheme or use something similar, which as previously mentioned, appears to work quite well subject to closing loopholes being used for abuse. Regards, Muntasir Ali, Specialist ICT Analyst, ICT oneSource Newham Dockside , 1000 Dockside Road , London E16 2QU DDI: 020 3373 7337, Int: 37337 oneSource - working on behalf of Havering and Newham councils www.onesource.co.uk Follow us on Twitter: @oneSourceUK Please consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ NOTE: This communication is sent for and on behalf of the London Borough of Newham. However the views expressed within it are not necessarily the views or policies of the Council. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this communication and any attachments is forbidden. This communication and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may be confidential. If this has come to you in error you should immediately permanently destroy it. You should take no action based on it or copy or show it to anyone and telephone the Council immediately with any issues on 020 8430 2000 or any other number provided in the communication. Please note that electronic communication is not considered a secure medium for sending information and therefore maybe at risk. We advise that you understand and accept this lack of security when using this form of communication with us. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free and should run current anti-virus software. Please note that email may be monitored and checked to safeguard the council network from viruses, hoax messages or abuse of the Council's systems. Action may be taken against any malicious and deliberate attempts to infect the council network. The information contained in this email maybe subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.
On 09/21/2016 02:46 PM, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote:
As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described.
There is a big difference between disliking a proposal just because it is more expensive to you, and it really being infeasible for any organisation. What if the price difference was not exactly proportional, but more modest, based on categories, like other NCCs have. E.g. similar to ARIN where a provider with a /22 pays $ 500, and one with a /16 $ 4000 Would you still take advantage of the loophole you have as legacy holder, and go through the trouble of setting up another LIR for your IPv6, just to save +/- 3k? And how many legacy holders with no other IPv4 space does RIPE actually have? Yours sincerely, Floris Bos
Even if pricing was adjusted at the end of the day what would that really accomplish. I think this whole email thread is just skewed and way off course. Several things proposed RIPE just cannot do, period. It would run RIPE counter to not only it's own articles, but of European law as well. Now, if the end goal is to simply 'redistribute' the cost among its members differently, this is fine. Just remember, at the end of the day, you are splitting a 21~ Million EUR budget (could be slightly higher for 2016) between close to 15,000 LIR's now, any way you slice it, you won't have much of an impact. For the LIR with a single /22, if saving 1,000 EUR a year is honestly a make or break thing for you, quite frankly, re-evaluate your business and find a new line of work. As the non-profit mentioned, right now it makes sense for them, but he's also correct. Legacy blocks are not contractually controlled the same way non legacy is, so you easily risk them deciding it's not worth having their block announced by RIPE and simply going elsewhere for the same services. End of the day, I think the over all goal should be defined, and then once it is defined make a path, otherwise we're just wasting electrons. On 09/21/2016 08:27 AM, Floris Bos wrote:
On 09/21/2016 02:46 PM, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote:
As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described.
There is a big difference between disliking a proposal just because it is more expensive to you, and it really being infeasible for any organisation.
What if the price difference was not exactly proportional, but more modest, based on categories, like other NCCs have. E.g. similar to ARIN where a provider with a /22 pays $ 500, and one with a /16 $ 4000
Would you still take advantage of the loophole you have as legacy holder, and go through the trouble of setting up another LIR for your IPv6, just to save +/- 3k?
And how many legacy holders with no other IPv4 space does RIPE actually have?
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.
Hi, On 09/21/2016 03:27 PM, Floris Bos wrote:
On 09/21/2016 02:46 PM, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote:
As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described.
There is a big difference between disliking a proposal just because it is more expensive to you, and it really being infeasible for any organisation.
What if the price difference was not exactly proportional, but more modest, based on categories, like other NCCs have. E.g. similar to ARIN where a provider with a /22 pays $ 500, and one with a /16 $ 4000
My business (member for 2 Months, with a /22 IPv4 from the last /8) would save 2/3 of the yearly costs (nice), but large LIRs on the other hand would probably not be motivated to do anything, not to mention to release valuable IPv4 resources, as the cost savings would be marginal to them. So my question is... What would we achieve with such pricing policy change? Best regards Roman Szabados
Would you still take advantage of the loophole you have as legacy holder, and go through the trouble of setting up another LIR for your IPv6, just to save +/- 3k?
And how many legacy holders with no other IPv4 space does RIPE actually have?
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.
On 09/21/2016 04:03 PM, Roman Szabados wrote:
On 09/21/2016 03:27 PM, Floris Bos wrote:
On 09/21/2016 02:46 PM, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote:
As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described. There is a big difference between disliking a proposal just because it is more expensive to you, and it really being infeasible for any organisation.
What if the price difference was not exactly proportional, but more modest, based on categories, like other NCCs have. E.g. similar to ARIN where a provider with a /22 pays $ 500, and one with a /16 $ 4000 My business (member for 2 Months, with a /22 IPv4 from the last /8) would save 2/3 of the yearly costs (nice), but large LIRs on the other hand would probably not be motivated to do anything, not to mention to release valuable IPv4 resources, as the cost savings would be marginal to them.
So my question is... What would we achieve with such pricing policy change?
I believe such pricing policy is simply more FAIR. Nothing more, nothing less. And I suspect there are others who feel the same, as the initial post that started this discussion read: "the Executive Board recognises that the membership has grown considerably since the current charging scheme model was introduced and that some members now feel that the current model is not a equitable way to pay for the RIPE NCC's activities." Perhaps those do not speak up now in this discussion though, afraid others may think they are unable to afford it, or whatever. Would still be interesting to see what the results would be, if there is ever going to be another opportunity to vote on it. As far as motivating large LIRs to release resources by making costs much more higher, that got proposed later in the discussion, I do not believe it is realistic to raise fees large enough to achieve that. Yours sincerely, Floris Bos
On 21/09/16 16:12, Floris Bos wrote:
Perhaps those do not speak up now in this discussion though, afraid others may think they are unable to afford it, or whatever. Would still be interesting to see what the results would be, if there is ever going to be another opportunity to vote on it.
The membership actually gets to vote on the charging scheme every year and the EB listens continually to membership views on it and the form it should take. Nigel
On Wed Sep 21, 2016 at 12:46:04PM +0000, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote:
This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described
Some of those proposals were intended to make some give up their space as too expensive, in the hope that RIPE would get the space back and allocate it to them/others. Luckily you have legacy so can opt out
were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation.
One of the reasons I declined the offer to convert legacy (on another, not for profit, LIR) to regular PA RIPE managed was I couldn't be sure there woulnd't be a crazy policy come up where I'd regret it. If you had taken their offer you could probably argue to rescind it based on unreasonable change of terms. With your legacy opted out you should be able to keep the current LIR and thus the current v6 space
Not that I expect it to work that way anyway (creating an LIR with IPv6 allocation and no IPv4 allocation)
That has to be possible as we're heading to a v6 only future. Today new entrants may use an upstreams v4 but start with their own v6
that's simply not maintainable for RIPE if quite a large number of organisations were to do this, and it may push up costs for the members which do have IPv4 allocations.
Should make no difference at all, current fees take no account of the space you use.
Which highlights another point - I've noticed there's been no mention or consideration of size of IPv6 allocations when it comes to charging models based on IP allocation. I presume the general membership don't consider this an issue at present due to the vast size of IPv6 address space?
Current charging model is flat so it doesn't matter. Some are proposing it not be flat which does introduce such problems brandon
On 21/09/2016 15:46, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote:
Hi,
As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described. Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6 services on our networks. If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation. If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if we have no IPv4 registered, we don't get charged anything? We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members. Even though we are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community.
Speaking also as a non-profit, academic LIR with legacy IPv4 address space, I too would be opposed to any charging model whereby the legacy address space was billed based on size. I moved all our address space to within RIPE and thereby pay an additional 450 Euro on top of the 1400 Euro membership fee (50 Euro x 9). I consider that fair. One has to understand that legacy holders are a minority. The vast majority of LIRs are newcomers. This vast majority can one day wake up and vote to charge all legacy holders a 10,000Euro fee per object - simply because they can. Their fee would go down a bit and legacy holders would either have to leave with their objects or pay through the nose. As in any democracy, there are checks and balances such that the executive branch would have to veto any such proposal. Hopefully. -Hank
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised? G -- Regards, Graham Stewart Senior Solutions Architect Network Operation Centre Academia Ltd. (AS47704) P. +44 (0)1992 703 900 E&OE
On 21 Sep 2016, at 19:21, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
On 21/09/2016 15:46, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote: Hi,
As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described. Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6 services on our networks. If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation. If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if we have no IPv4 registered, we don't get charged anything? We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members. Even though we are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community.
Speaking also as a non-profit, academic LIR with legacy IPv4 address space, I too would be opposed to any charging model whereby the legacy address space was billed based on size. I moved all our address space to within RIPE and thereby pay an additional 450 Euro on top of the 1400 Euro membership fee (50 Euro x 9). I consider that fair.
One has to understand that legacy holders are a minority. The vast majority of LIRs are newcomers. This vast majority can one day wake up and vote to charge all legacy holders a 10,000Euro fee per object - simply because they can. Their fee would go down a bit and legacy holders would either have to leave with their objects or pay through the nose. As in any democracy, there are checks and balances such that the executive branch would have to veto any such proposal. Hopefully.
-Hank
---- 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.
I’d love to meet the guy who thought that giving an entire /8 to amateur radio enthusiasts was a good idea. They even carved out an entire /16 of that range for a “testing subnet”. How cute and disgustingly unnecessary. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Academia NOC <noc@academia.co.uk<mailto:noc@academia.co.uk>> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 12:11 PM To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il<mailto:hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>> Cc: "members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>" <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised? G -- Regards, Graham Stewart Senior Solutions Architect Network Operation Centre Academia Ltd. (AS47704) P. +44 (0)1992 703 900 E&OE On 21 Sep 2016, at 19:21, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il<mailto:hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>> wrote: On 21/09/2016 15:46, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk<mailto:Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk> wrote: Hi, As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described. Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6 services on our networks. If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation. If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if we have no IPv4 registered, we don't get charged anything? We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members. Even though we are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community. Speaking also as a non-profit, academic LIR with legacy IPv4 address space, I too would be opposed to any charging model whereby the legacy address space was billed based on size. I moved all our address space to within RIPE and thereby pay an additional 450 Euro on top of the 1400 Euro membership fee (50 Euro x 9). I consider that fair. One has to understand that legacy holders are a minority. The vast majority of LIRs are newcomers. This vast majority can one day wake up and vote to charge all legacy holders a 10,000Euro fee per object - simply because they can. Their fee would go down a bit and legacy holders would either have to leave with their objects or pay through the nose. As in any democracy, there are checks and balances such that the executive branch would have to veto any such proposal. Hopefully. -Hank ---- 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.
No offense, Jon Postel has run the registry from a paper sheet in this days, you should read about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel And it was a very bright idea, so they wouldn’t have to make some up. This all sounds like envy, why being jealous about a resource assigned more than twenty years ago? Point is, everybody knows about the upcoming shortage for 10+ years. We could charge for announced IPs, this would drive the usage down, but lead to more highjacked IP space. We could pay years of free RIPE membership to LIRs returning space, but they could also sell it. Think more about how it could be steered, not how to tell somebody else “you don’t need it, give it to me”. Otherwise you run into the “the amateur radio is crap, the military is crap, the large universities are all crap networks and so on ….”-discussion. Who needs more IPv4 space right now? End user networks deploying more dual stack or even IPv4 only networks? Sorry this times are over. whatever you do, you can only delay the inevitable another month or two. Matthias
On 21 Sep 2016, at 21:30, Network Engineers <NetEng@audiencescience.com> wrote:
I’d love to meet the guy who thought that giving an entire /8 to amateur radio enthusiasts was a good idea. They even carved out an entire /16 of that range for a “testing subnet”. How cute and disgustingly unnecessary.
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Academia NOC <noc@academia.co.uk> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 12:11 PM To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> Cc: "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections.
I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now.
We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space.
What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation.
I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest.
Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
G -- Regards,
Graham Stewart Senior Solutions Architect Network Operation Centre Academia Ltd. (AS47704)
P. +44 (0)1992 703 900
E&OE
On 21 Sep 2016, at 19:21, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
On 21/09/2016 15:46, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote:
Hi,
As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described. Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6 services on our networks. If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation. If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if we have no IPv4 registered, we don't get charged anything? We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members. Even though we are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community.
Speaking also as a non-profit, academic LIR with legacy IPv4 address space, I too would be opposed to any charging model whereby the legacy address space was billed based on size. I moved all our address space to within RIPE and thereby pay an additional 450 Euro on top of the 1400 Euro membership fee (50 Euro x 9). I consider that fair.
One has to understand that legacy holders are a minority. The vast majority of LIRs are newcomers. This vast majority can one day wake up and vote to charge all legacy holders a 10,000Euro fee per object - simply because they can. Their fee would go down a bit and legacy holders would either have to leave with their objects or pay through the nose. As in any democracy, there are checks and balances such that the executive branch would have to veto any such proposal. Hopefully.
-Hank
---- 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.
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.
+1 :-) Cheers, Carlos On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Matthias ?ubik wrote:
No offense, Jon Postel has run the registry from a paper sheet in this days, you should read about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel
And it was a very bright idea, so they wouldn?t have to make some up. This all sounds like envy, why being jealous about a resource assigned more than twenty years ago? Point is, everybody knows about the upcoming shortage for 10+ years. We could charge for announced IPs, this would drive the usage down, but lead to more highjacked IP space. We could pay years of free RIPE membership to LIRs returning space, but they could also sell it.
Think more about how it could be steered, not how to tell somebody else ?you don?t need it, give it to me?. Otherwise you run into the ?the amateur radio is crap, the military is crap, the large universities are all crap networks and so on ?.?-discussion.
Who needs more IPv4 space right now? End user networks deploying more dual stack or even IPv4 only networks? Sorry this times are over. whatever you do, you can only delay the inevitable another month or two.
Matthias
On 21 Sep 2016, at 21:30, Network Engineers <NetEng@audiencescience.com> wrote:
I?d love to meet the guy who thought that giving an entire /8 to amateur radio enthusiasts was a good idea. They even carved out an entire /16 of that range for a ?testing subnet?. How cute and disgustingly unnecessary.
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Academia NOC <noc@academia.co.uk> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 12:11 PM To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> Cc: "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections.
I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now.
We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space.
What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation.
I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest.
Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
G -- Regards,
Graham Stewart Senior Solutions Architect Network Operation Centre Academia Ltd. (AS47704)
P. +44 (0)1992 703 900
E&OE
On 21 Sep 2016, at 19:21, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
On 21/09/2016 15:46, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote:
Hi,
As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described. Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6 services on our networks. If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation. If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if we have no IPv4 register ed, we don't get charged anything? We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members. Even though we are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community.
Speaking also as a non-profit, academic LIR with legacy IPv4 address space, I too would be opposed to any charging model whereby the legacy address space was billed based on size. I moved all our address space to within RIPE and thereby pay an additional 450 Euro on top of the 1400 Euro membership fee (50 Euro x 9). I consider that fair.
One has to understand that legacy holders are a minority. The vast majority of LIRs are newcomers. This vast majority can one day wake up and vote to charge all legacy holders a 10,000Euro fee per object - simply because they can. Their fee would go down a bit and legacy holders would either have to leave with their objects or pay through the nose. As in any democracy, there are checks and balances such that the executive branch would have to veto any such proposal. Hopefully.
-Hank
---- 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.
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.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Academia NOC <noc@academia.co.uk> wrote:
snip> We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space.
You do realize the word "legacy" maybe have some special meaning? Like it's outside RIPE NCC domain of control? That the space is registred with RIPE NCC is probably most for the benefit of us all. Either way - if you like it or not, IPv4 is in itself legacy, move on to the future, start using IPv6 and stop wasting all of ours time with this IPv4 crap. Suggestion: try todo the math, with amount of people online, add IoT, add mobile phones etc, there is simply not enough space in IPv4 to match up with the demand for IP space. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
On Wed Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:34PM +0100, Academia NOC wrote:
I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'.
And what, exactly, would this achieve? RIPE have sufficient reserves to meet the needs of the current IPv4 allocation policies for the foreseeable future. Do you think that if these 'cushions' were returned, RIPE would suddenly change their allocation policies, and IPv4 would become freely available again? If hell were to freeze over, and this were to happen, then it'd last the grand sum of 6 months, if we're really lucky. More likely, 6 weeks, or even 6 days. And then we're back to where we started from, and we've wasted a load of effort on trying to fix a problem that can't be fixed. STOP TRYING TO COME UP WITH WAYS TO RECLAIM IPv4 ADDRESSES. IT WILL ACHIEVE NOTHING. Simon
Hi, I'm the technical contract for two small LIRs (two completely separate companies). While it might be in my interest in the short term to back a proposal to "reclaim IPv4 addresses", I'd like to my name down twofold for the "stop this time wasting stupidity" team. IPv4 IS DEAD! If you need more then you are misunderstanding what your /22 was allocated to you for (BTW it's a transition utility, it's not intended to be used as primary addressing). Let's move on to constructive discussion on other key topics and stop beating the same dead horse of an augment that seems to rear it's ugly head once a year. It's not going to happen, even if it did it won't change a thing. So get over it and deploy CGN if you are out of addresses. -Tim. On 21 Sep 2016 11:25 p.m., "Simon Lockhart" < s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:34PM +0100, Academia NOC wrote:
I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'.
And what, exactly, would this achieve?
RIPE have sufficient reserves to meet the needs of the current IPv4 allocation policies for the foreseeable future.
Do you think that if these 'cushions' were returned, RIPE would suddenly change their allocation policies, and IPv4 would become freely available again? If hell were to freeze over, and this were to happen, then it'd last the grand sum of 6 months, if we're really lucky. More likely, 6 weeks, or even 6 days. And then we're back to where we started from, and we've wasted a load of effort on trying to fix a problem that can't be fixed.
STOP TRYING TO COME UP WITH WAYS TO RECLAIM IPv4 ADDRESSES. IT WILL ACHIEVE NOTHING.
Simon
---- 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.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 23:24, Simon Lockhart wrote:
STOP TRYING TO COME UP WITH WAYS TO RECLAIM IPv4 ADDRESSES. IT WILL ACHIEVE NOTHING.
I don't find it as much about reclaiming as it is about making things the same for everybody: IPv4 = cost (even if it's only symbolic). Right now IPv4 = profit. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Hi, On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:11:34PM +0100, Academia NOC wrote:
We should bill legacy holders per /24
There is no contractual relationship or legal framework that would enable you to do that. The whole point of "legacy" is "it was not assigned by the RIPE NCC, there is no contract with the RIPE NCC governing this space". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections.
I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now.
We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space.
What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation.
I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest.
Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
Wow. Just wow. Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim. All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. (This applies to PA space too) None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion situation anyway. It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the items in this thread. BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair rearrangement project? Ian Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly spouting off about things. I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result in a substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid points as far as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a market monopoly etc, yet the vast majority of the people crying for change have produced nothing substantial. As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on reality, then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is, let's move on to something more realistic, such as the folks getting /29 legacy assignments just to snag a LIR account as well as folks opening multiple LIR accounts with the hopes of transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those are real issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's not fair lets make it fair. Daniel~ On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised? Wow. Just wow.
Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim.
All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. (This applies to PA space too)
None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion situation anyway.
It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the items in this thread.
BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair rearrangement project?
Ian
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. ---- 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.
Well, Those so called small minority have the same right as the others thinking they are majority, thats why every organization has a right to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a level of fairness, while you can spend more time on those real issues :) Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22. And the number of those new members are more than the old ones which are making a fortune by selling their unused IPv4 to them. Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22? Cheers, Arash On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly spouting off about things.
I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result in a substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid points as far as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a market monopoly etc, yet the vast majority of the people crying for change have produced nothing substantial.
As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on reality, then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is, let's move on to something more realistic, such as the folks getting /29 legacy assignments just to snag a LIR account as well as folks opening multiple LIR accounts with the hopes of transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those are real issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's not fair lets make it fair.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably
have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
Wow. Just wow.
Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim.
All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. (This applies to PA space too)
None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion situation anyway.
It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the items in this thread.
BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair rearrangement project?
Ian
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. ---- 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.
---- 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.
Hi Arash: The thing is,if we make member holding /22 only pay 27 euro(at absolute sense of fairness), there will be no /22 left anymore for the next day. The only reason RIPE still have /22 is, it is still not *that* cheap. 2016年9月22日星期四，Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> 写道：
Well, Those so called small minority have the same right as the others thinking they are majority, thats why every organization has a right to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a level of fairness, while you can spend more time on those real issues :)
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22. And the number of those new members are more than the old ones which are making a fortune by selling their unused IPv4 to them.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
Cheers,
Arash
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','daniel@privatesystems.net');>> wrote:
I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly spouting off about things.
I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result in a substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid points as far as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a market monopoly etc, yet the vast majority of the people crying for change have produced nothing substantial.
As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on reality, then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is, let's move on to something more realistic, such as the folks getting /29 legacy assignments just to snag a LIR account as well as folks opening multiple LIR accounts with the hopes of transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those are real issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's not fair lets make it fair.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably
have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
Wow. Just wow.
Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim.
All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. (This applies to PA space too)
None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion situation anyway.
It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the items in this thread.
BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair rearrangement project?
Ian
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. ---- 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.
---- 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.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi Lu, If you believe that's a real problem, it needs to be addressed in a right way possibly in APWG, not but just by putting financial pressure on small new members in favor of big block holders. Regards, Arash On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Hi Arash:
The thing is,if we make member holding /22 only pay 27 euro(at absolute sense of fairness), there will be no /22 left anymore for the next day.
The only reason RIPE still have /22 is, it is still not *that* cheap.
2016年9月22日星期四，Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> 写道：
Well, Those so called small minority have the same right as the others thinking they are majority, thats why every organization has a right to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a level of fairness, while you can spend more time on those real issues :)
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22. And the number of those new members are more than the old ones which are making a fortune by selling their unused IPv4 to them.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
Cheers,
Arash
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Pearson < daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly spouting off about things.
I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result in a substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid points as far as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a market monopoly etc, yet the vast majority of the people crying for change have produced nothing substantial.
As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on reality, then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is, let's move on to something more realistic, such as the folks getting /29 legacy assignments just to snag a LIR account as well as folks opening multiple LIR accounts with the hopes of transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those are real issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's not fair lets make it fair.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that
probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
Wow. Just wow.
Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim.
All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. (This applies to PA space too)
None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion situation anyway.
It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the items in this thread.
BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair rearrangement project?
Ian
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. ---- 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.
---- 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.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 09:44:40PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22.
No, they *chose* to join RIPE as an LIR, because it was cheaper than buying the IPs they need on the open market. And you're now asking for it to be even cheaper.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
The data is published, I can't be bothered to write a script to figure it out, but it wouldn't be hard. http://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/membership/alloclist.txt Simon
Nobody wants to drop a scarce resource like ipv4, even if they don't use it. They'd rather sell it and i believe this is the normal human behavior. I believe we should focus on making all ripe members ipv6 ready (100%) and any discounts/costs should be based on ipv6 implementation rather than ipv4. On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:55:12 +0300, Simon Lockhart <simon@slimey.org> wrote:
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 09:44:40PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22.
No, they *chose* to join RIPE as an LIR, because it was cheaper than buying the IPs they need on the open market. And you're now asking for it to be even cheaper.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
The data is published, I can't be bothered to write a script to figure it out, but it wouldn't be hard.
http://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/membership/alloclist.txt
Simon
---- 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.
Correct. The whole "how do we redistribute unused IPv4" discussion is mute, nonsense, pointless. Fact: IPv4 is exhausted Fact: IPv6 has been available for 10+ years. Actually a lot longer than that, if we include the test bed. Redistributing unused IPv4 is patching holes. The holes are bigger than the patchwork available or that possibly could be made available. Get on with life and focus on getting IPv6 deployment sorted. Don't rummage around with issues, that aren't solvable. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd. On 22/09/16 13:18, Host.AG wrote:
Nobody wants to drop a scarce resource like ipv4, even if they don't use it. They'd rather sell it and i believe this is the normal human behavior. I believe we should focus on making all ripe members ipv6 ready (100%) and any discounts/costs should be based on ipv6 implementation rather than ipv4.
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:55:12 +0300, Simon Lockhart <simon@slimey.org> wrote:
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 09:44:40PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22.
No, they *chose* to join RIPE as an LIR, because it was cheaper than buying the IPs they need on the open market. And you're now asking for it to be even cheaper.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
The data is published, I can't be bothered to write a script to figure it out, but it wouldn't be hard.
http://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/membership/alloclist.txt
Simon
---- 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.
---- 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.
-- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Please, stop saying utopic/stupid things. We have full IPv6 support in our VPS servers, less than 5% of our customers are using it. There is no sense to force our customers to use IPv6 when big ISP access providers are still routing xDSL connections with IPv4. And nothing to say related the services and software developed that don't support IPv6. On 22/09/2016 14:34, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
Correct.
The whole "how do we redistribute unused IPv4" discussion is mute, nonsense, pointless.
Fact: IPv4 is exhausted
Fact: IPv6 has been available for 10+ years. Actually a lot longer than that, if we include the test bed.
Redistributing unused IPv4 is patching holes. The holes are bigger than the patchwork available or that possibly could be made available.
Get on with life and focus on getting IPv6 deployment sorted. Don't rummage around with issues, that aren't solvable.
Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd.
-- José Manuel Giner http://ginernet.com
Hi, On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:09:11PM +0200, José Manuel Giner wrote:
Please, stop saying utopic/stupid things.
We have full IPv6 support in our VPS servers, less than 5% of our customers are using it. There is no sense to force our customers to use IPv6 when big ISP access providers are still routing xDSL connections with IPv4. And nothing to say related the services and software developed that don't support IPv6.
So, how's "complain that IPv4 is no longer working properly" going to fix that? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
And because of the mentioned normal human behavior, there are plenty of new members thinking that they should pay less than old members ;) Arash On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Host.AG <admin@host.ag> wrote:
Nobody wants to drop a scarce resource like ipv4, even if they don't use it. They'd rather sell it and i believe this is the normal human behavior. I believe we should focus on making all ripe members ipv6 ready (100%) and any discounts/costs should be based on ipv6 implementation rather than ipv4.
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:55:12 +0300, Simon Lockhart <simon@slimey.org> wrote:
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 09:44:40PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22.
No, they *chose* to join RIPE as an LIR, because it was cheaper than buying the IPs they need on the open market. And you're now asking for it to be even cheaper.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
The data is published, I can't be bothered to write a script to figure it out, but it wouldn't be hard.
http://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/ stats/membership/alloclist.txt
Simon
---- 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.
---- 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.
On 22/09/16 13:47, Arash Naderpour wrote:
And because of the mentioned normal human behavior, there are plenty of new members thinking that they should pay less than old members ;)
Arash
That may very well be, but then some research should be done again and those people should check, what the older members, due to historical reasons have bigger allocations, have paid in the past for the membership and allocations. You'd find, that the price has come down a lot in the last years. So .. calculate years of allocation by fees paid every year and you'll find thats exactly the case. You come late to the game, you pay overall less for the ressource. But you also get a smaller piece of the pie. Such is life. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Host.AG <admin@host.ag> wrote:
Nobody wants to drop a scarce resource like ipv4, even if they don't use it. They'd rather sell it and i believe this is the normal human behavior. I believe we should focus on making all ripe members ipv6 ready (100%) and any discounts/costs should be based on ipv6 implementation rather than ipv4.
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:55:12 +0300, Simon Lockhart <simon@slimey.org> wrote:
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 09:44:40PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22.
No, they *chose* to join RIPE as an LIR, because it was cheaper than buying the IPs they need on the open market. And you're now asking for it to be even cheaper.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
The data is published, I can't be bothered to write a script to figure it out, but it wouldn't be hard.
http://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/ stats/membership/alloclist.txt
Simon
---- 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.
---- 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.
---- 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.
-- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
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. Would be curious to see, but even @ the estimated 15,000 LIR's this year, I would assume only 3,000~ or less have just a single /22 associated to their account. Just as a rough number I came up with about 879,126,218 IP's within the RIPE NCC that aren't tied to Legacy status. It's a VERY rough number, but as far as the average LIR size and how many one has I stopped short on that as that's more work than I care to put into pulling from the database and making associations. Let me ask you, Arash, what is your goal. Is it to simply pay less? If so, perhaps that is 'somewhat' feasible, assuming an agreement can be reached with all parties. If your goal is to try and redistribute IP's then most will agree, this is not possible, both in a legal sense (because of Legacy) and it would be a self harming policy for most people to vote for. Daniel~ On 09/22/2016 06:44 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Well, Those so called small minority have the same right as the others thinking they are majority, thats why every organization has a right to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a level of fairness, while you can spend more time on those real issues :)
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22. And the number of those new members are more than the old ones which are making a fortune by selling their unused IPv4 to them.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
Cheers,
Arash
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net <mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote:
I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly spouting off about things.
I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result in a substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid points as far as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a market monopoly etc, yet the vast majority of the people crying for change have produced nothing substantial.
As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on reality, then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is, let's move on to something more realistic, such as the folks getting /29 legacy assignments just to snag a LIR account as well as folks opening multiple LIR accounts with the hopes of transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those are real issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's not fair lets make it fair.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
Wow. Just wow.
Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim.
All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. (This applies to PA space too)
None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion situation anyway.
It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the items in this thread.
BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair rearrangement project?
Ian
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. ---- 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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- 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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi Arash: You should look at policy mailing list, it has been a very long and complicated discussion for past 2 years, I can not tell you what happen in a single sentence, but I guess the conclusion are fairly simple, it can not be done though PDP. With regards. Lu On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> 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.
Would be curious to see, but even @ the estimated 15,000 LIR's this year, I would assume only 3,000~ or less have just a single /22 associated to their account. Just as a rough number I came up with about 879,126,218 IP's within the RIPE NCC that aren't tied to Legacy status. It's a VERY rough number, but as far as the average LIR size and how many one has I stopped short on that as that's more work than I care to put into pulling from the database and making associations.
Let me ask you, Arash, what is your goal. Is it to simply pay less? If so, perhaps that is 'somewhat' feasible, assuming an agreement can be reached with all parties.
If your goal is to try and redistribute IP's then most will agree, this is not possible, both in a legal sense (because of Legacy) and it would be a self harming policy for most people to vote for.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 06:44 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Well, Those so called small minority have the same right as the others thinking they are majority, thats why every organization has a right to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a level of fairness, while you can spend more time on those real issues :)
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22. And the number of those new members are more than the old ones which are making a fortune by selling their unused IPv4 to them.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
Cheers,
Arash
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net
wrote:
I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly spouting off about things.
I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result in a substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid points as far as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a market monopoly etc, yet the vast majority of the people crying for change have produced nothing substantial.
As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on reality, then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is, let's move on to something more realistic, such as the folks getting /29 legacy assignments just to snag a LIR account as well as folks opening multiple LIR accounts with the hopes of transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those are real issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's not fair lets make it fair.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably
have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
Wow. Just wow.
Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim.
All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. (This applies to PA space too)
None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion situation anyway.
It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the items in this thread.
BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair rearrangement project?
Ian
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. ---- 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.
---- 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.
---- 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.
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
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
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 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote:
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.
El 22/09/2016 a las 18:51, Tim Armstrong escribió:
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?
Hi, I Wonder why solution to small LIRs is to adopt IPv6. It isnt. The problem here is big (and not so big) old LIRs are keeping lot of IPv4 resources they dont need. Resources that was given to them for *free* and resources that they are *selling* to small and new LIRs that only have a single /22. And oh, surprise, we are paying the same. Why the big and old one can keep and sell IPv4 resources while I need to buy at a high rate the same resources? Why they can *sell* the resources? Why they are not bound to return the unused space? Why I must pay the same if we dont have the same conditions? If we dont have the same opportunities? Yes, yes, I know, IPv4 is *out*, but is out in papers, not in the real life. In real life, there are A LOT of unused IPv4 space waiting to be selled. Also, you would say, CGN! CGN!. Soooo, I need to buy/mantain a CGN becouse RIPE dont give me more space while other LIRs have a lot of unused space and we are paying the same. They dont need to CGNAT while I dont have any other option. Real option I mean, buying IP Space is insane at the moment. My 2 cents... Regards,
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:19:17PM +0200, Daniel Baeza wrote:
I Wonder why solution to small LIRs is to adopt IPv6. It isnt.
Adopt it, it is the solution for all sizes. Spend your effort on that not IPv4 envy
The problem here is big (and not so big) old LIRs are keeping lot of IPv4 resources they dont need. Resources that was given to them for *free* and resources that they are *selling* to small and new LIRs that only have a single /22.
A lot of land is owned by people who got it very cheap long ago. Try taking it off them (Ok RIPE region covers countries where you in theory just take what land you need. Try taking the Kremlin they'll send you to Siberia where there's plenty but not as useful)
And oh, surprise, we are paying the same. Why the big and old one can keep and sell IPv4 resources while I need to buy at a high rate the same resources?
You can sell yours at the same price to others if you didn't need it This is why the scammers are creating lots of new LIRs. They think it's fair that it's so cheap to get from RIPE vs market price and will love it when you make it even cheaper for them
Why they can *sell* the resources? Why they are not bound to return the unused space?
History - can't rewrite it. You need a revolution to take it back
Why I must pay the same if we dont have the same conditions? If we dont have the same opportunities?
Because you came late and missed taking Paris.
Also, you would say, CGN! CGN!. Soooo, I need to buy/mantain a CGN becouse RIPE dont give me more space while other LIRs have a lot of unused space and we are paying the same. They dont need to CGNAT while I dont have any other option
Correct. brandon
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 19:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
A lot of land is owned by people who got it very cheap long ago. Try taking it off them (Ok RIPE region covers countries where you in
In most countries you pay taxes for the land you have. The more you have, the more takes you pay. Someone having 100m2 of land does not pay the same as one that has 100000m2 of land.
You can sell yours at the same price to others if you didn't need it This is why the scammers are creating lots of new LIRs. They think it's fair that it's so cheap to get from RIPE vs market price and will love it when you make it even cheaper for them
What entitles you to call "scammer" someone that chooses to pay less lots of money "one shot" for something that others got for free ? Oh, by the way, do "scammers" include those that get IP space by registering LIRs on different companies with same contact info and strikingly similar names ? (sorry, couldn't resist). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Inline: On 26 Sep 2016 11:32 p.m., "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" < ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 19:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
A lot of land is owned by people who got it very cheap long ago. Try taking it off them (Ok RIPE region covers countries where you in
In most countries you pay taxes for the land you have. The more you have, the more takes you pay. Someone having 100m2 of land does not pay the same as one that has 100000m2 of land.
RIPE NCC is not a government it is an association. You still pay tax to your government for property, which technically means legacy resource holders should declare it in their taxes (but that is aside from RIPE NCC which has no right to those resources).
You can sell yours at the same price to others if you didn't need it This is why the scammers are creating lots of new LIRs. They think it's fair that it's so cheap to get from RIPE vs market price and will love it when you make it even cheaper for them
What entitles you to call "scammer" someone that chooses to pay less lots of money "one shot" for something that others got for free ?
No one called you a scammer, they stated that people that use loopholes to get around community set policy are.
Oh, by the way, do "scammers" include those that get IP space by registering LIRs on different companies with same contact info and strikingly similar names ? (sorry, couldn't resist).
Yes it does. But that is a loophole we will struggle to close legally. But the use of those resources by one company is difficult until the two year transfer limitation has passed and would require some seriously sketchy BGP work to use in the meantime.
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
---- 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.
-Tim
On 09/26/2016 11:58 PM, Tim Armstrong wrote:
On 26 Sep 2016 11:32 p.m., "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" <ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net <mailto:ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 19:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
A lot of land is owned by people who got it very cheap long ago. Try taking it off them (Ok RIPE region covers countries where you in
In most countries you pay taxes for the land you have. The more you have, the more takes you pay. Someone having 100m2 of land does not pay the same as one that has 100000m2 of land.
RIPE NCC is not a government it is an association. You still pay tax to your government for property, which technically means legacy resource holders should declare it in their taxes (but that is aside from RIPE NCC which has no right to those resources).
Not sure if the comparison with taxes is all that far off. Keep in mind that while the land may be owned by the holders, the NCCs do are providing services to it. Maybe the legacy holders didn't ask for that database entry, but I do think they do like to have things like reverse DNS delegation. By comparison, if you own land, you typically also get services provided to you, in exchange for council tax. In many countries they have differentiated fees for that, based on the size of your household or value of your house. And arguing that your great grandfather bought that giant mansion long ago when land was still cheap, and the tax was flat rate will not get you far. Nor will the fact that you already had an outhouse before you were connected to the city's sewerage system, and were a pioneer in that field, will give you any discount. And while there may be good reasons to continue to provide existing non-LIR legacy holders with free services, does that automatically mean new holders of sold legacy space should be provided with them free of charge as well?
You can sell yours at the same price to others if you didn't need it This is why the scammers are creating lots of new LIRs. They think it's fair that it's so cheap to get from RIPE vs market price and will love it when you make it even cheaper for them
What entitles you to call "scammer" someone that chooses to pay less lots of money "one shot" for something that others got for free ?
No one called you a scammer, they stated that people that use loopholes to get around community set policy are.
Oh, by the way, do "scammers" include those that get IP space by registering LIRs on different companies with same contact info and strikingly similar names ? (sorry, couldn't resist).
But are those new LIRs, or rather older LIRs that used those different entities in the past, under older policy? Note that it is apparently not necessary for new LIRs to have a different legal entity to register a second LIR. RIPE seems to advertise the possibility to do so in bright neon lights: https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/info/faqs/faq-joining == Can I open additional LIR accounts? Yes, it is possible for a legal entity to open additional LIR accounts and request one /22 IPv4 allocation for that account. == So don't blame all scams on newcomers, if it involves multiple entities, it might as well be an older one.
Continuing this conversation beyond the four day mark costs us all time, which also costs money
I do not think the feeling that the current fee scheme is unfair to smaller members (both old and new) will go away soon. Even if we stop talking about it now, if it is not addressed the issue will pop up again sooner or later. Like I mentioned before the smaller LIRs are already the majority right now (68% has up to /20 total space), and that number will only increase in the next few years. Wouldn't it be better if we could agree on a realistic modest price differentiation now, and take some steam of the issue? Rather than it dragging on, and you risking more drastic increases will be proposed and approved in the future? Yours sincerely, Floris Bos
Floris, I don't think anyone disagrees about coming up with a realistic pricing discussion. My problem is, no one has yet to step up, and provide a well thought out plan to discuss. It's always been off the cuff whining for the most part because Jimmy's dog is bigger than my dog but they don't sell big dogs anymore! So honestly, until someone produces such a plan, I do agree this thread is a bit of a waste of time. The smaller holders can complain all they want, but spend some time, put together an actual proposal and then let people provide input on that. On 09/27/2016 06:45 AM, Floris Bos wrote:
On 09/26/2016 11:58 PM, Tim Armstrong wrote:
On 26 Sep 2016 11:32 p.m., "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" <ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net <mailto:ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 19:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
A lot of land is owned by people who got it very cheap long ago. Try taking it off them (Ok RIPE region covers countries where you in
In most countries you pay taxes for the land you have. The more you have, the more takes you pay. Someone having 100m2 of land does not pay the same as one that has 100000m2 of land.
RIPE NCC is not a government it is an association. You still pay tax to your government for property, which technically means legacy resource holders should declare it in their taxes (but that is aside from RIPE NCC which has no right to those resources).
Not sure if the comparison with taxes is all that far off.
Keep in mind that while the land may be owned by the holders, the NCCs do are providing services to it. Maybe the legacy holders didn't ask for that database entry, but I do think they do like to have things like reverse DNS delegation. By comparison, if you own land, you typically also get services provided to you, in exchange for council tax. In many countries they have differentiated fees for that, based on the size of your household or value of your house. And arguing that your great grandfather bought that giant mansion long ago when land was still cheap, and the tax was flat rate will not get you far. Nor will the fact that you already had an outhouse before you were connected to the city's sewerage system, and were a pioneer in that field, will give you any discount.
And while there may be good reasons to continue to provide existing non-LIR legacy holders with free services, does that automatically mean new holders of sold legacy space should be provided with them free of charge as well?
You can sell yours at the same price to others if you didn't need it This is why the scammers are creating lots of new LIRs. They think it's fair that it's so cheap to get from RIPE vs market price and will love it when you make it even cheaper for them
What entitles you to call "scammer" someone that chooses to pay less lots of money "one shot" for something that others got for free ?
No one called you a scammer, they stated that people that use loopholes to get around community set policy are.
Oh, by the way, do "scammers" include those that get IP space by registering LIRs on different companies with same contact info and strikingly similar names ? (sorry, couldn't resist).
But are those new LIRs, or rather older LIRs that used those different entities in the past, under older policy?
Note that it is apparently not necessary for new LIRs to have a different legal entity to register a second LIR. RIPE seems to advertise the possibility to do so in bright neon lights:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/info/faqs/faq-joining
== Can I open additional LIR accounts?
Yes, it is possible for a legal entity to open additional LIR accounts and request one /22 IPv4 allocation for that account. ==
So don't blame all scams on newcomers, if it involves multiple entities, it might as well be an older one.
Continuing this conversation beyond the four day mark costs us all time, which also costs money
I do not think the feeling that the current fee scheme is unfair to smaller members (both old and new) will go away soon. Even if we stop talking about it now, if it is not addressed the issue will pop up again sooner or later. Like I mentioned before the smaller LIRs are already the majority right now (68% has up to /20 total space), and that number will only increase in the next few years. Wouldn't it be better if we could agree on a realistic modest price differentiation now, and take some steam of the issue? Rather than it dragging on, and you risking more drastic increases will be proposed and approved in the future?
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.
On 09/27/2016 02:01 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees about coming up with a realistic pricing discussion.
Good. Then the next question would be, what would you consider to be realistic minimum and maximum fees? Personally, I do believe the membership fee between a small start-up and a giant telecom company with millions of IPs and customers can and should be significant, and not just a couple hundred. But yes, I do am realistic enough not to expect the 27 EUR for a /22 absolute fairness. Let's see... - The budget & activity plan expects 21 million membership fee income. - Can differentiate by price by simply counting the total number of IP-addresses that have been allocated to a LIR - Different pricing per category instead of ultimate fair per individual IP pricing as concession to larger LIRs. - Let's have a lower limit of 500 EUR for /22, similar to the $ 500 another NCC charges ( https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#categories ) - Upper limit of say 8000 EUR for the largest LIRs - If you where to have 5 categories. You could roughly have something like this: Total IP space Number of LIRs Fee Total fee <= /24 1 500 500 <= /23 4 500 2000 <= /22 6081 500 3040500 <= /21 1583 1000 1583000 <= /20 1638 1000 1638000 <= /19 1548 2000 3096000 <= /18 1040 2000 2080000 <= /17 709 4000 2836000 <= /16 385 4000 1540000 <= /15 293 8000 2344000 <= /14 133 8000 1064000 <= /13 110 8000 880000 <= /12 80 8000 640000 <= /11 64 8000 512000 <= /10 25 8000 200000 <= /9 14 8000 112000 <= /8 6 8000 48000 <= /7 2 8000 16000 Totals 13716 21632000 Could also have more categories, or have per IP pricing within a category to smooth things out further. Yours sincerely, Floris Bos
This proposal is quite simple and fair. Kind Regards, Timo Hopponen FNE-Finland Ltd Floris Bos <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> kirjoitti 27.9.2016 kello 19.02:
On 09/27/2016 02:01 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees about coming up with a realistic pricing discussion.
Good. Then the next question would be, what would you consider to be realistic minimum and maximum fees?
Personally, I do believe the membership fee between a small start-up and a giant telecom company with millions of IPs and customers can and should be significant, and not just a couple hundred. But yes, I do am realistic enough not to expect the 27 EUR for a /22 absolute fairness.
Let's see...
- The budget & activity plan expects 21 million membership fee income. - Can differentiate by price by simply counting the total number of IP-addresses that have been allocated to a LIR - Different pricing per category instead of ultimate fair per individual IP pricing as concession to larger LIRs. - Let's have a lower limit of 500 EUR for /22, similar to the $ 500 another NCC charges ( https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#categories ) - Upper limit of say 8000 EUR for the largest LIRs - If you where to have 5 categories. You could roughly have something like this:
Total IP space Number of LIRs Fee Total fee
<= /24 1 500 500 <= /23 4 500 2000 <= /22 6081 500 3040500
<= /21 1583 1000 1583000 <= /20 1638 1000 1638000
<= /19 1548 2000 3096000 <= /18 1040 2000 2080000
<= /17 709 4000 2836000 <= /16 385 4000 1540000
<= /15 293 8000 2344000 <= /14 133 8000 1064000 <= /13 110 8000 880000 <= /12 80 8000 640000 <= /11 64 8000 512000 <= /10 25 8000 200000 <= /9 14 8000 112000 <= /8 6 8000 48000 <= /7 2 8000 16000
Totals 13716 21632000
Could also have more categories, or have per IP pricing within a category to smooth things out further.
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.
This proposal is quite simple and fair. Kind Regards, Timo Hopponen FNE-Finland Ltd Floris Bos <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> kirjoitti 27.9.2016 kello 19.02:
On 09/27/2016 02:01 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees about coming up with a realistic pricing discussion.
Good. Then the next question would be, what would you consider to be realistic minimum and maximum fees?
Personally, I do believe the membership fee between a small start-up and a giant telecom company with millions of IPs and customers can and should be significant, and not just a couple hundred. But yes, I do am realistic enough not to expect the 27 EUR for a /22 absolute fairness.
Let's see...
- The budget & activity plan expects 21 million membership fee income. - Can differentiate by price by simply counting the total number of IP-addresses that have been allocated to a LIR - Different pricing per category instead of ultimate fair per individual IP pricing as concession to larger LIRs. - Let's have a lower limit of 500 EUR for /22, similar to the $ 500 another NCC charges ( https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#categories ) - Upper limit of say 8000 EUR for the largest LIRs - If you where to have 5 categories. You could roughly have something like this:
Total IP space Number of LIRs Fee Total fee
<= /24 1 500 500 <= /23 4 500 2000 <= /22 6081 500 3040500
<= /21 1583 1000 1583000 <= /20 1638 1000 1638000
<= /19 1548 2000 3096000 <= /18 1040 2000 2080000
<= /17 709 4000 2836000 <= /16 385 4000 1540000
<= /15 293 8000 2344000 <= /14 133 8000 1064000 <= /13 110 8000 880000 <= /12 80 8000 640000 <= /11 64 8000 512000 <= /10 25 8000 200000 <= /9 14 8000 112000 <= /8 6 8000 48000 <= /7 2 8000 16000
Totals 13716 21632000
Could also have more categories, or have per IP pricing within a category to smooth things out further.
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.
On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 18:02 +0200, Floris Bos wrote:
On 09/27/2016 02:01 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:
I don't think anyone disagrees about coming up with a realistic pricing discussion.
Good. Then the next question would be, what would you consider to be realistic minimum and maximum fees?
500 EUR minimum and 8000 EUR maximum seems realistic, and would bring the RIPE NCC closer to what the other RIRs are charging. I think that 500 EUR should be an absolute minimum: even after rebate, no one should pay less than that.
Could also have more categories, or have per IP pricing within a category to smooth things out further.
I've done a simulation with a base fee + per IP pricing (no categories): Member fee = min(500.00 + IPv4_count * 0.12, 8000.00) Total IPv4 ALLOCATED PA: 583973120 LIRs: 14027. Total fees: 21237786.40 Data from alloclist.txt, taking only ALLOCATED PA into account. Your category-based proposal also looks fine to me. Regards, Sebastien Brossier
Tim, I would say you get a gold star for recommending something feasible and realistic. RIPE already had a budget excess of over 5 Mil EUR last year. I would not be opposed if RIPE was tasked with creating a department to help with IPv6 education through programs like that. Daniel~ On 09/22/2016 11:51 AM, Tim Armstrong wrote:
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 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl <mailto:bos@je-eigen-domein.nl>> wrote:
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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- 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.
Daniel (and others) On 22/09/16 18:32, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Tim,
I would say you get a gold star for recommending something feasible and realistic. RIPE already had a budget excess of over 5 Mil EUR last year. I would not be opposed if RIPE was tasked with creating a department to help with IPv6 education through programs like that.
Could I respectfully suggest that you take a look at the RIPE NCC activity plan which tells you exactly on what and how much the RIPE NCC is planning to spend next year. It already spends a lot on outreach and it continues to spend a lot on IPv6 education. It's been doing this for many, many years. Start by looking at last year's plan, this year's will be out very soon. Have a look and comment on it. All the best Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
Nigel, Thanks for the information. I've read a lot of the plan and have a couple of questions if you feel inclined to provide some more insight. According to what I can see, the budget is split into several parts for training. A general 'overall' training budget and then a much smaller budget for IPv6 Support. Based on this document in particular, it's hard to say exactly how much of the larger training budget is spent specifically on IPv6, but it does show that the dedicated "IPv6 Support" budget is quite small, roughly 171,000 EUR. It seems primarily tied to MENOG sponsored IPv6 Roadshows. The rest seems split into the ENOG region, mostly with past efforts being to cross train folks with the idea that they will help present more road shows. The final split in the budget is the online resources for IPv6. Can you say how much of the training budget applies to IPv6 in general? Any plans to expand the IPv6 roadshows outside of ENOG and MENOG? My personal opinion is the budget of 171,000 EUR for IPv6 Support, for the size of RIPE, is quite small. I would be interested to see that increased quite a bit to allow for more online resources, training, webinars and potentially even access to professionals that, while not providing support per say, could help guide folks unfamiliar with some of the IPv6 pitfalls in the right direction. Daniel~ On 09/22/2016 12:47 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Daniel (and others)
On 22/09/16 18:32, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Tim,
I would say you get a gold star for recommending something feasible and realistic. RIPE already had a budget excess of over 5 Mil EUR last year. I would not be opposed if RIPE was tasked with creating a department to help with IPv6 education through programs like that. Could I respectfully suggest that you take a look at the RIPE NCC activity plan which tells you exactly on what and how much the RIPE NCC is planning to spend next year. It already spends a lot on outreach and it continues to spend a lot on IPv6 education. It's been doing this for many, many years. Start by looking at last year's plan, this year's will be out very soon.
Have a look and comment on it.
All the best
Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
---- 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.
I second/third Daniels suggestions that we stop crying about the horse that bolted the stable long ago, its just a waste of time and bandwidth, yes we really could do with having some mechanism to stop the “scammers” from just setting up as many LIR’s as they can but i can’t help but think that no matter what avenue you take its going to hurt the genuine person needing space and not solve the problem of the grey/black market of IP trading, so why fix a broken system with yet another broken system when the answer is very clear... IPv6 take up and deployment to the consumer is quite frankly poor, especially when we have known about this problem for 20+ years now i certainly think RIPE’s budget for IPv6 training, evangelism etc needs to be far higher. we need to be doing whatever we can to encourage and push for wider adoption of IPv6 - including lobbying the CPE vendors and core networking vendors to make sure there kit is A grade standard for IPv6 support, yes the core networking kit side is generally fine these days but CPE support can be quite shockingly poor and the vendors need to be taken to task on it. i do second the idea of RIPE run or RIPE supported tunnel end points for transitional purposes and other initiatives that will encourage IPv6 adoption Anthony Somerset, Technical Director, w: cloudunboxed.net <http://www.cloudunboxed.net/> | e: anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net <mailto:anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net> | t: +44 (0)33 0088 2444 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail. Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of malware in attachments to this e-mail.
On 22 Sep,2016, at 20:16, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
Nigel,
Thanks for the information. I've read a lot of the plan and have a couple of questions if you feel inclined to provide some more insight.
According to what I can see, the budget is split into several parts for training. A general 'overall' training budget and then a much smaller budget for IPv6 Support. Based on this document in particular, it's hard to say exactly how much of the larger training budget is spent specifically on IPv6, but it does show that the dedicated "IPv6 Support" budget is quite small, roughly 171,000 EUR.
It seems primarily tied to MENOG sponsored IPv6 Roadshows. The rest seems split into the ENOG region, mostly with past efforts being to cross train folks with the idea that they will help present more road shows.
The final split in the budget is the online resources for IPv6.
Can you say how much of the training budget applies to IPv6 in general?
Any plans to expand the IPv6 roadshows outside of ENOG and MENOG?
My personal opinion is the budget of 171,000 EUR for IPv6 Support, for the size of RIPE, is quite small. I would be interested to see that increased quite a bit to allow for more online resources, training, webinars and potentially even access to professionals that, while not providing support per say, could help guide folks unfamiliar with some of the IPv6 pitfalls in the right direction.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 12:47 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Daniel (and others)
On 22/09/16 18:32, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Tim,
I would say you get a gold star for recommending something feasible and realistic. RIPE already had a budget excess of over 5 Mil EUR last year. I would not be opposed if RIPE was tasked with creating a department to help with IPv6 education through programs like that. Could I respectfully suggest that you take a look at the RIPE NCC activity plan which tells you exactly on what and how much the RIPE NCC is planning to spend next year. It already spends a lot on outreach and it continues to spend a lot on IPv6 education. It's been doing this for many, many years. Start by looking at last year's plan, this year's will be out very soon.
Have a look and comment on it.
All the best
Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
---- 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.
---- 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.
Daniel Thanks, that's a good data point to have. On 22/09/16 19:16, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Nigel,
Thanks for the information. I've read a lot of the plan and have a couple of questions if you feel inclined to provide some more insight.
According to what I can see, the budget is split into several parts for training. A general 'overall' training budget and then a much smaller budget for IPv6 Support. Based on this document in particular, it's hard to say exactly how much of the larger training budget is spent specifically on IPv6, but it does show that the dedicated "IPv6 Support" budget is quite small, roughly 171,000 EUR.
It seems primarily tied to MENOG sponsored IPv6 Roadshows. The rest seems split into the ENOG region, mostly with past efforts being to cross train folks with the idea that they will help present more road shows.
The MENOG and ENOG regions are where we concentrate a lot of the effort partly because we get a lot of support from governmental organisations there and also because they are, mainly, the regions which have less penetration of IPv6. We've been doing IPv6 training in Western Europe for a long time but we've found that the issue there isn't so much a training one but an unwillingness to invest resources in pushing IPv6. In a sense, the rising price of IPv4 is helping because it is at last becoming apparent to those holding the budgets that hanging onto IPv4 has a cost, and it's one that is rising as time goes by.
The final split in the budget is the online resources for IPv6.
Can you say how much of the training budget applies to IPv6 in general?
Offhand, I don't know but I can get the information.
Any plans to expand the IPv6 roadshows outside of ENOG and MENOG?
If that's what the members want then we'll do it.
My personal opinion is the budget of 171,000 EUR for IPv6 Support, for the size of RIPE, is quite small. I would be interested to see that increased quite a bit to allow for more online resources, training, webinars and potentially even access to professionals that, while not providing support per say, could help guide folks unfamiliar with some of the IPv6 pitfalls in the right direction.
Again, thanks for your input. We can certainly look at adding more Ipv6 training to the activity plan. All the best Nigel
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 12:47 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Daniel (and others)
On 22/09/16 18:32, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Tim,
I would say you get a gold star for recommending something feasible and realistic. RIPE already had a budget excess of over 5 Mil EUR last year. I would not be opposed if RIPE was tasked with creating a department to help with IPv6 education through programs like that. Could I respectfully suggest that you take a look at the RIPE NCC activity plan which tells you exactly on what and how much the RIPE NCC is planning to spend next year. It already spends a lot on outreach and it continues to spend a lot on IPv6 education. It's been doing this for many, many years. Start by looking at last year's plan, this year's will be out very soon.
Have a look and comment on it.
All the best
Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
---- 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.
---- 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.
Hi Daniel, Thank you for your questions. Please note that IPv6 activities and support are spread throughout the organisation, so it’s difficult to give you an exact number as to how much effort and money is spent on IPv6 in total. I’m going to focus on training and outreach activities alone. IPv6 is a significant part of our training portfolio, both face to face and on-line. For 2017 we have 287kEUR budgeted for the following IPv6 training: - Basic IPv6 training course (29x in 2016) - 2-day Advanced IPv6 training course (10x in 2016) In addition to this, there is a 171kEUR budget for: - IPv6 Program Management - IPv6 Roadshows (7x in 2016) If we add these up, the total IPv6 training and program management budget is 458kEUR. This does not include our online activities, which is a separate budget. For IPv6 we have the following training services available online: - IPv6 Addressing plan Webinar (7x in 2016) - IPv6 in the RIPE DB Webinar (7x in 2016) Apart from this, in 2015 we launched the on-line Introduction to IPv6 training course on the RIPE NCC Academy. In 2017 we are planning to release a more advanced IPv6 course on the RIPE NCC Academy. These are just the numbers of the IPv6-only courses and webinars. I would like to add here that IPv6 is also covered in our other courses, where relevant. IPv6 is *everywhere*. As it should be! With regards to your question
Any plans to expand the IPv6 roadshows outside of ENOG and MENOG?
The roadshow material is the same material as the Basic and Advanced IPv6 training courses combined. We have already been doing these courses for a few years in the entirety of our service region. If you would like to see a list of all the countries we’ve been to in 2016, please let me know, I’m happy to give you more information. And, as Nigel mentioned, we can certainly look at adding more IPv6 training to the activity plan. Kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC
On 22 Sep 2016, at 20:16, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
Nigel,
Thanks for the information. I've read a lot of the plan and have a couple of questions if you feel inclined to provide some more insight.
According to what I can see, the budget is split into several parts for training. A general 'overall' training budget and then a much smaller budget for IPv6 Support. Based on this document in particular, it's hard to say exactly how much of the larger training budget is spent specifically on IPv6, but it does show that the dedicated "IPv6 Support" budget is quite small, roughly 171,000 EUR.
It seems primarily tied to MENOG sponsored IPv6 Roadshows. The rest seems split into the ENOG region, mostly with past efforts being to cross train folks with the idea that they will help present more road shows.
The final split in the budget is the online resources for IPv6.
Can you say how much of the training budget applies to IPv6 in general?
Any plans to expand the IPv6 roadshows outside of ENOG and MENOG?
My personal opinion is the budget of 171,000 EUR for IPv6 Support, for the size of RIPE, is quite small. I would be interested to see that increased quite a bit to allow for more online resources, training, webinars and potentially even access to professionals that, while not providing support per say, could help guide folks unfamiliar with some of the IPv6 pitfalls in the right direction.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 12:47 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Daniel (and others)
On 22/09/16 18:32, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Tim,
I would say you get a gold star for recommending something feasible and realistic. RIPE already had a budget excess of over 5 Mil EUR last year. I would not be opposed if RIPE was tasked with creating a department to help with IPv6 education through programs like that. Could I respectfully suggest that you take a look at the RIPE NCC activity plan which tells you exactly on what and how much the RIPE NCC is planning to spend next year. It already spends a lot on outreach and it continues to spend a lot on IPv6 education. It's been doing this for many, many years. Start by looking at last year's plan, this year's will be out very soon.
Have a look and comment on it.
All the best
Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
---- 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.
---- 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.
Rumy, Thanks for taking the time to expand upon this. I had assumed IPv6 training and promotion would be mixed in so from the main report a bit more difficult to calculate. On 09/23/2016 04:55 AM, Rumy Kanis wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your questions. Please note that IPv6 activities and support are spread throughout the organisation, so it’s difficult to give you an exact number as to how much effort and money is spent on IPv6 in total. I’m going to focus on training and outreach activities alone.
IPv6 is a significant part of our training portfolio, both face to face and on-line. For 2017 we have 287kEUR budgeted for the following IPv6 training: - Basic IPv6 training course (29x in 2016) - 2-day Advanced IPv6 training course (10x in 2016) Are these face to face only, or do you also conduct them in a webinar setting?
In addition to this, there is a 171kEUR budget for: - IPv6 Program Management - IPv6 Roadshows (7x in 2016)
If we add these up, the total IPv6 training and program management budget is 458kEUR.
This does not include our online activities, which is a separate budget. For IPv6 we have the following training services available online: - IPv6 Addressing plan Webinar (7x in 2016) - IPv6 in the RIPE DB Webinar (7x in 2016)
Apart from this, in 2015 we launched the on-line Introduction to IPv6 training course on the RIPE NCC Academy. In 2017 we are planning to release a more advanced IPv6 course on the RIPE NCC Academy.
That is awesome to hear. I think indeed more of this will be useful. Speaking without having looked at a lot of the material online, I think an unique approach would be to reach out to a sample set of providers who may not be taking advantage of IPv6 and compile a list of some of the common misunderstandings involved with IPv6 to help build upon a search able database. Would help not only with providing an authoritative answer for some of these questions, but also could be used to drive traffic and awareness to RIPE's efforts with IPv6.
These are just the numbers of the IPv6-only courses and webinars. I would like to add here that IPv6 is also covered in our other courses, where relevant. IPv6 is *everywhere*. As it should be!
With regards to your question
Any plans to expand the IPv6 roadshows outside of ENOG and MENOG? The roadshow material is the same material as the Basic and Advanced IPv6 training courses combined. We have already been doing these courses for a few years in the entirety of our service region. If you would like to see a list of all the countries we’ve been to in 2016, please let me know, I’m happy to give you more information. And, as Nigel mentioned, we can certainly look at adding more IPv6 training to the activity plan.
Kind regards,
Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC
Thanks again!
On 22 Sep 2016, at 20:16, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
Nigel,
Thanks for the information. I've read a lot of the plan and have a couple of questions if you feel inclined to provide some more insight.
According to what I can see, the budget is split into several parts for training. A general 'overall' training budget and then a much smaller budget for IPv6 Support. Based on this document in particular, it's hard to say exactly how much of the larger training budget is spent specifically on IPv6, but it does show that the dedicated "IPv6 Support" budget is quite small, roughly 171,000 EUR.
It seems primarily tied to MENOG sponsored IPv6 Roadshows. The rest seems split into the ENOG region, mostly with past efforts being to cross train folks with the idea that they will help present more road shows.
The final split in the budget is the online resources for IPv6.
Can you say how much of the training budget applies to IPv6 in general?
Any plans to expand the IPv6 roadshows outside of ENOG and MENOG?
My personal opinion is the budget of 171,000 EUR for IPv6 Support, for the size of RIPE, is quite small. I would be interested to see that increased quite a bit to allow for more online resources, training, webinars and potentially even access to professionals that, while not providing support per say, could help guide folks unfamiliar with some of the IPv6 pitfalls in the right direction.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 12:47 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Daniel (and others)
On 22/09/16 18:32, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Tim,
I would say you get a gold star for recommending something feasible and realistic. RIPE already had a budget excess of over 5 Mil EUR last year. I would not be opposed if RIPE was tasked with creating a department to help with IPv6 education through programs like that. Could I respectfully suggest that you take a look at the RIPE NCC activity plan which tells you exactly on what and how much the RIPE NCC is planning to spend next year. It already spends a lot on outreach and it continues to spend a lot on IPv6 education. It's been doing this for many, many years. Start by looking at last year's plan, this year's will be out very soon.
Have a look and comment on it.
All the best
Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
---- 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.
---- 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.
Hi Daniel,
On 09/23/2016 04:55 AM, Rumy Kanis wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your questions. Please note that IPv6 activities and support are spread throughout the organisation, so it’s difficult to give you an exact number as to how much effort and money is spent on IPv6 in total. I’m going to focus on training and outreach activities alone.
IPv6 is a significant part of our training portfolio, both face to face and on-line. For 2017 we have 287kEUR budgeted for the following IPv6 training: - Basic IPv6 training course (29x in 2016) - 2-day Advanced IPv6 training course (10x in 2016) Are these face to face only, or do you also conduct them in a webinar setting?
Currently, the Basic IPv6 course is face-to-face, and also available online in a different format on the RIPE NCC Academy. The Advanced IPv6 course is only face-to-face, as it includes practical labs and hands-on exercises. However, we are planning to release an Advanced IPv6 course on the RIPE NCC Academy in 2017. There are some challenges around remote labs and helping participants to get solid hands-on practice, but it is one of our priorities. Webinars are usually around one hour long with some extra time for questions. They are very useful for shorter sessions, but not really for a full-day course. That being said, we are considering organising day-long events with a series of webinars (possibly with content experts from the community), focused around specific topics. IPv6 would definitely be a good topic for one of these events.
In addition to this, there is a 171kEUR budget for: - IPv6 Program Management - IPv6 Roadshows (7x in 2016)
If we add these up, the total IPv6 training and program management budget is 458kEUR.
This does not include our online activities, which is a separate budget. For IPv6 we have the following training services available online: - IPv6 Addressing plan Webinar (7x in 2016) - IPv6 in the RIPE DB Webinar (7x in 2016)
Apart from this, in 2015 we launched the on-line Introduction to IPv6 training course on the RIPE NCC Academy. In 2017 we are planning to release a more advanced IPv6 course on the RIPE NCC Academy.
That is awesome to hear. I think indeed more of this will be useful. Speaking without having looked at a lot of the material online, I think an unique approach would be to reach out to a sample set of providers who may not be taking advantage of IPv6 and compile a list of some of the common misunderstandings involved with IPv6 to help build upon a search able database. Would help not only with providing an authoritative answer for some of these questions, but also could be used to drive traffic and awareness to RIPE's efforts with IPv6.
Thank you, that is a great suggestion. We spend quite a lot of time on misunderstandings in our training courses and have discussions about them with the participants. We are also looking at alternative ways of bringing people together to talk about IPv6 in their area and share their experiences in their own language. Kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC
These are just the numbers of the IPv6-only courses and webinars. I would like to add here that IPv6 is also covered in our other courses, where relevant. IPv6 is *everywhere*. As it should be!
With regards to your question
Any plans to expand the IPv6 roadshows outside of ENOG and MENOG? The roadshow material is the same material as the Basic and Advanced IPv6 training courses combined. We have already been doing these courses for a few years in the entirety of our service region. If you would like to see a list of all the countries we’ve been to in 2016, please let me know, I’m happy to give you more information. And, as Nigel mentioned, we can certainly look at adding more IPv6 training to the activity plan.
Kind regards,
Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC
Thanks again!
On 22 Sep 2016, at 20:16, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> wrote:
Nigel,
Thanks for the information. I've read a lot of the plan and have a couple of questions if you feel inclined to provide some more insight.
According to what I can see, the budget is split into several parts for training. A general 'overall' training budget and then a much smaller budget for IPv6 Support. Based on this document in particular, it's hard to say exactly how much of the larger training budget is spent specifically on IPv6, but it does show that the dedicated "IPv6 Support" budget is quite small, roughly 171,000 EUR.
It seems primarily tied to MENOG sponsored IPv6 Roadshows. The rest seems split into the ENOG region, mostly with past efforts being to cross train folks with the idea that they will help present more road shows.
The final split in the budget is the online resources for IPv6.
Can you say how much of the training budget applies to IPv6 in general?
Any plans to expand the IPv6 roadshows outside of ENOG and MENOG?
My personal opinion is the budget of 171,000 EUR for IPv6 Support, for the size of RIPE, is quite small. I would be interested to see that increased quite a bit to allow for more online resources, training, webinars and potentially even access to professionals that, while not providing support per say, could help guide folks unfamiliar with some of the IPv6 pitfalls in the right direction.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 12:47 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Daniel (and others)
On 22/09/16 18:32, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Tim,
I would say you get a gold star for recommending something feasible and realistic. RIPE already had a budget excess of over 5 Mil EUR last year. I would not be opposed if RIPE was tasked with creating a department to help with IPv6 education through programs like that. Could I respectfully suggest that you take a look at the RIPE NCC activity plan which tells you exactly on what and how much the RIPE NCC is planning to spend next year. It already spends a lot on outreach and it continues to spend a lot on IPv6 education. It's been doing this for many, many years. Start by looking at last year's plan, this year's will be out very soon.
Have a look and comment on it.
All the best
Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
---- 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.
---- 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.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 19:47, Nigel Titley wrote:
Could I respectfully suggest that you take a look at the RIPE NCC activity plan which tells you exactly on what and how much the RIPE NCC is planning to spend next year. It already spends a lot on outreach and it continues to spend a lot on IPv6 education. It's been doing this for
I would suggest you investigate the option of creating "IPv6 for sales/marketing/management" training courses. Or outreach activities for entities other than LIRs. Some people get to the point where they know how to do it, they are just not allowed to because "not important/not making money". -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Hi, In the case someone missed it, there is already a training department :-) two IPv6 courses (https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses), and even an IPv6 e-learning course (https://academy.ripe.net/). This is only a personal opinion, but all the content is extremely well built. :-) Regards, Carlos Friaças On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Tim,
I would say you get a gold star for recommending something feasible and realistic. RIPE already had a budget excess of over 5 Mil EUR last year. I would not be opposed if RIPE was tasked with creating a department to help with IPv6 education through programs like that.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 11:51 AM, Tim Armstrong wrote:
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 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote: 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.
---- 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.
We need to see better hardware support for IPv6 before we work on end-user adoption. It’s hard to build apps at Internet scale when your expensive front-end load balancers don’t support IPv6 in their ASICs. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Tim Armstrong <t.armstrong@nerdalize.com<mailto:t.armstrong@nerdalize.com>> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 9:51 AM To: Floris Bos <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl<mailto:bos@je-eigen-domein.nl>> Cc: "members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>" <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model 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 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl<mailto:bos@je-eigen-domein.nl>> wrote: 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.
Yeah, that would be good, but with On 22 Sep 2016 8:30 p.m., "Network Engineers" <NetEng@audiencescience.com> wrote:
We need to see better hardware support for IPv6 before we work on
end-user adoption. It’s hard to build apps at Internet scale when your expensive front-end load balancers don’t support IPv6 in their ASICs.
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Tim
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 9:51 AM To: Floris Bos <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl>
Cc: "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
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
Armstrong <t.armstrong@nerdalize.com> 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 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote:
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.
Hi, On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 06:30:54PM +0000, Network Engineers wrote:
We need to see better hardware support for IPv6 before we work on end-user adoption. It???s hard to build apps at Internet scale when your expensive front-end load balancers don???t support IPv6 in their ASICs.
Decide with your wallet. Just do not buy the stuff that cannot do IPv6 - there is enough stuff available today (and has been since many years) that will happily do IPv6 at the same speed as IPv4. For loadbalancers, at least F5 and Citrix Netscaler never had this "IPv6 in software only" tax. (And do not complain *now* that you did not listen to us telling everyone for the last 10+ years that "if you buy new gear, make sure that it will do proper IPv6 when you decide to turn it on, when you're ready") Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I agree entirely! Too many people are blaming others for their own short sightedness, and frankly it's no one's fault but their own. On 22 Sep 2016 10:16 p.m., "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 06:30:54PM +0000, Network Engineers wrote:
We need to see better hardware support for IPv6 before we work on end-user adoption. It???s hard to build apps at Internet scale when your expensive front-end load balancers don???t support IPv6 in their ASICs.
Decide with your wallet. Just do not buy the stuff that cannot do IPv6 - there is enough stuff available today (and has been since many years) that will happily do IPv6 at the same speed as IPv4.
For loadbalancers, at least F5 and Citrix Netscaler never had this "IPv6 in software only" tax.
(And do not complain *now* that you did not listen to us telling everyone for the last 10+ years that "if you buy new gear, make sure that it will do proper IPv6 when you decide to turn it on, when you're ready")
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
/Surprisingly/, the main argument from the "big old ones" is: That's how we've always been doing. Ever heard of the experiment about some monkeys, a ladder and a water hose? We just got our /22, and we are not going to need any more IPv4 in a foreseeable future. IPv6 is the way. We know, we got it, we agree. *But* I do agree that it is unfair that our fee is the same as some LIR that own/hoard/have so many more resources than us. The people telling us to switch to IPv6 are the ones who run all their networks on IPv4 and thus making IPv6 spread slower. I do find the ARIN model a lot better than the RIPE one. On 22/09/2016 22:30, Tim Armstrong wrote:
I agree entirely! Too many people are blaming others for their own short sightedness, and frankly it's no one's fault but their own.
On 22 Sep 2016 10:16 p.m., "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 06:30:54PM +0000, Network Engineers wrote: > We need to see better hardware support for IPv6 before we work on end-user adoption. It???s hard to build apps at Internet scale when your expensive front-end load balancers don???t support IPv6 in their ASICs.
Decide with your wallet. Just do not buy the stuff that cannot do IPv6 - there is enough stuff available today (and has been since many years) that will happily do IPv6 at the same speed as IPv4.
For loadbalancers, at least F5 and Citrix Netscaler never had this "IPv6 in software only" tax.
(And do not complain *now* that you did not listen to us telling everyone for the last 10+ years that "if you buy new gear, make sure that it will do proper IPv6 when you decide to turn it on, when you're ready")
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
---- 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.
On 22/09/16 21:56, Bastien Schils wrote:
/Surprisingly/, the main argument from the "big old ones" is: That's how we've always been doing. Ever heard of the experiment about some monkeys, a ladder and a water hose?
We just got our /22, and we are not going to need any more IPv4 in a foreseeable future. IPv6 is the way. We know, we got it, we agree.
*But* I do agree that it is unfair that our fee is the same as some LIR that own/hoard/have so many more resources than us. The people telling us to switch to IPv6 are the ones who run all their networks on IPv4 and thus making IPv6 spread slower.
That's probably the biggest nonsense I've heard in quite a while. First of all, the people, that tell you to switch IPv6 are the ones, that have rolled out v6 years ago, not the ones, that run their infrastructure on IPv4. Secondly, RIPE used to charge based on amount of ressources. It was since changed. Now you want it changed back. If you for example changed to the old charging scheme you'd also hurt the ones, that came a bit later to the game. As we progressed towards the end, the standard allocation was decreased. So members, who got allocations later on, would have more prefixes of smaller sizes and would have requested prefixes more often. These paid more than those with one large prefix for example, because of the amount of individual prefixes. No matter how you change it, somebody will always feel treated unfair. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen-- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Hi, Tunnels? seriously? no, please... End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using. Anyone (at the end of 2016) providing service to third parties should be able to provide native IPv6... Regards, Carlos On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Tim Armstrong wrote:
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 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote: 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.
I agree entirely, but a large number still don't and providing a solution for those affected users is still a equipment during the transition period. Not to mention we should also consider providing support for end users with legacy equipment, which I don't see any real reasons against. We (RIPE) have a surplus of funds each year, let's spend some of our helping those that can't help themselves. -Tim On 22 Sep 2016 11:07 p.m., "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
Hi,
Tunnels? seriously? no, please...
End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using.
Anyone (at the end of 2016) providing service to third parties should be able to provide native IPv6...
Regards, Carlos
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Tim Armstrong wrote:
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 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote: 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.
On 22.9.2016 v 23:07 Carlos Friacas wrote:
Tunnels? seriously? no, please...
End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using.
+1 Over-the-top tunnels are actually killing IPv6 experience for everyone (excess RTT, MTU, geolocation and speed issues, etc.) Plus, to quote SixXS: https://www.sixxs.net/news/2015/#callyourispforipv6-1201
Unfortunately it seems a large number of ISPs think that our service is a free pass for them to not deploy IPv6, as they direct their (paying) customers who want IPv6 to our service.
Maybe a better idea would be to create a fund for financial support of IPv6 deployments of providers, especially the big ones. Because most of them have no real technical problems, they just deliberately postpone the IPv6 adoption unless inevitable. The main idea is the later they deploy it, the less money it would cost. They don't have any actual need to deploy it, unless, say, YouTube stops playing HD videos to IPv4 clients. (That would be cool, actually.) I'm fully aware that any such support will be unfair to all those that already used their own money to deploy IPv6. But on the other hand, deploying IPv6 at big providers is in the interest of the RIPE community as a whole. Best Regards, Ondřej Caletka CESNET
On 23.09.2016 10:08, Ondřej Caletka wrote:
On 22.9.2016 v 23:07 Carlos Friacas wrote:
Tunnels? seriously? no, please...
End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using.
+1 +1
[snip] Maybe a better idea would be to create a fund for financial support of IPv6 deployments of providers, especially the big ones. Because most of them have no real technical problems, they just deliberately postpone the IPv6 adoption unless inevitable. The main idea is the later they deploy it, the less money it would cost. They don't have any actual need to deploy it, unless, say, YouTube stops playing HD videos to IPv4 clients. (That would be cool, actually.)
I'm fully aware that any such support will be unfair to all those that already used their own money to deploy IPv6. But on the other hand, deploying IPv6 at big providers is in the interest of the RIPE community as a whole.
I'd rather give the money to Google and other large content providers and ask them to stop supporting IPv4. Then let the big telcos deploy IPv6 because finally they will have to unless they want to lose all their customers. Not saying that this is a good idea though... Regards, Tom
Best Regards, Ondřej Caletka CESNET
---- 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.
This sounds like the perfect idea though Lobby the main providers/generators of Internet Bandwidth usage to only support IPv6 on new tech/products - even if only for initial launch phases. For example Netflix is starting to do UHD/4k, wouldn’t it be great if we could get them and google and others to only offer 4k/UHD on V6 only for a period of time like 3-6 months or even longer. The main challenge which makes this a long shot is that you need all of the major content providers to do it together otherwise none of them will because the consumer is so fickle, they will just switch in a heartbeat Anthony Somerset, Technical Director, w: cloudunboxed.net <http://www.cloudunboxed.net/> | e: anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net <mailto:anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net> | t: +44 (0)33 0088 2444 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail. Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of malware in attachments to this e-mail.
On 23 Sep,2016, at 10:16, Tom Lehtinen <ripe@tombii.com> wrote:
On 23.09.2016 10:08, Ondřej Caletka wrote:
Tunnels? seriously? no, please... End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using. +1 +1 [snip] Maybe a better idea would be to create a fund for financial support of IPv6 deployments of providers, especially the big ones. Because most of
On 22.9.2016 v 23:07 Carlos Friacas wrote: them have no real technical problems, they just deliberately postpone the IPv6 adoption unless inevitable. The main idea is the later they deploy it, the less money it would cost. They don't have any actual need to deploy it, unless, say, YouTube stops playing HD videos to IPv4 clients. (That would be cool, actually.) I'm fully aware that any such support will be unfair to all those that already used their own money to deploy IPv6. But on the other hand, deploying IPv6 at big providers is in the interest of the RIPE community as a whole. I'd rather give the money to Google and other large content providers and ask them to stop supporting IPv4. Then let the big telcos deploy IPv6 because finally they will have to unless they want to lose all their customers. Not saying that this is a good idea though...
Regards, Tom
Best Regards, Ondřej Caletka CESNET ---- 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.
---- 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.
El 23/09/2016 a las 10:24, Anthony Somerset escribió:
This sounds like the perfect idea though
I love the idea of the incentive to IPv6 deploy, but you all are forgetting the what I thing is the biggest problem. End-User equipment. There are several millions of home routers that are not IPv6 ready.
Lobby the main providers/generators of Internet Bandwidth usage to only support IPv6 on new tech/products - even if only for initial launch phases.
For example Netflix is starting to do UHD/4k, wouldn’t it be great if we could get them and google and others to only offer 4k/UHD on V6 only for a period of time like 3-6 months or even longer. The main challenge which makes this a long shot is that you need all of the major content providers to do it together otherwise none of them will because the consumer is so fickle, they will just switch in a heartbeat
The problem are not Google or Netflix, the problem still the big telcos who has the bast majority of users. If they are not IPv6, doesnt matter if google/netflix/facebook/whatever are IPv6 ready. If Netflix only provide 4K/UHD in IPv6, when the customer goes to the telco to complain, the telco will say "Hey, its a Netflix problem, not mine" tell Netflix to offer it in IPv4, dont complain to me! And the disadvantaged will be again the customer. Last IPv6 Statistics from google sais:[1] Native: 13.75% 6to4/Teredo: 0.01% Total IPv6: 13.75% The incentive is fine and Im not agains it but, what about penalize those big telcos who have a lot of IPv4 unused if they are not moving to IPv6? Sadly, the world move faster to avoid a penalization than for a incentive for doing it. Regards, [1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
Anthony Somerset, Technical Director,
Cloud Unboxed Limited
*w:* cloudunboxed.net <http://www.cloudunboxed.net> | *e: * anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net <mailto:anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net> | *t:* +44 (0)33 0088 2444
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
/This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail. Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of malware in attachments to this e-mail./
On 23 Sep,2016, at 10:16, Tom Lehtinen <ripe@tombii.com <mailto:ripe@tombii.com>> wrote:
Tunnels? seriously? no, please... End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using. +1 +1 [snip] Maybe a better idea would be to create a fund for financial support of IPv6 deployments of providers, especially the big ones. Because most of
On 22.9.2016 v 23:07 Carlos Friacas wrote: them have no real technical problems, they just deliberately postpone the IPv6 adoption unless inevitable. The main idea is the later they deploy it, the less money it would cost. They don't have any actual need to deploy it, unless, say, YouTube stops playing HD videos to IPv4 clients. (That would be cool, actually.) I'm fully aware that any such support will be unfair to all those that already used their own money to deploy IPv6. But on the other hand, deploying IPv6 at big providers is in the interest of the RIPE community as a whole. I'd rather give the money to Google and other large content providers and ask them to stop supporting IPv4. Then let the big telcos deploy IPv6 because finally they will have to unless they want to lose all
On 23.09.2016 10:08, Ondřej Caletka wrote: their customers. Not saying that this is a good idea though...
Regards, Tom
Best Regards, Ondřej Caletka CESNET ---- 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.
---- 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.
---- 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.
As I said; I agree tunnels are bad. But inaccessible resources are worse. I also agree that end users shouldn't care about which version of IP they are using, but that is idealism, this is reality; You have to prioritise availability of services over quality and speed of connection. Have you considered 464xlat, rather than the other way around? When I mention tunnels it is with the explicit intent that they should only be used by end-users to solve resource availability during this transition period. In which case I'm in strong preference of 464xlat to support legacy end-user's devices otherwise end-user's legacy devices will be effectively useless. - These are the same end-users that we all agree shouldn't care about which IP version they are using. If we force deprecation of their devices then we are effectively saying that they should care about which version of IP they are using. Again, I'm not saying tunnels are a good thing, but in a few edge cases they are unavoidable and a solution needs to be provided for those affected. As for lobbying large content providers to rate limit IPv4 or only offer some features over IPv6, I'm all for it! But I wont support the idea of paying them to do so: First because this would be a breach of net-neutrality, and Secondly if they want to be paid to do it I don't think we could afford their price (Netflix's yearly revenue is approximately 314 times RIPE NCC's yearly revenue). -Tim On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Anthony Somerset < anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net> wrote:
This sounds like the perfect idea though
Lobby the main providers/generators of Internet Bandwidth usage to only support IPv6 on new tech/products - even if only for initial launch phases.
For example Netflix is starting to do UHD/4k, wouldn’t it be great if we could get them and google and others to only offer 4k/UHD on V6 only for a period of time like 3-6 months or even longer.
The main challenge which makes this a long shot is that you need all of the major content providers to do it together otherwise none of them will because the consumer is so fickle, they will just switch in a heartbeat
Anthony Somerset, Technical Director,
[image: Cloud Unboxed Limited]
*w:* cloudunboxed.net <http://www.cloudunboxed.net> | *e: * anth ony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net | *t:* +44 (0)33 0088 2444
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
*This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail. Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of malware in attachments to this e-mail.*
On 23 Sep,2016, at 10:16, Tom Lehtinen <ripe@tombii.com> wrote:
On 23.09.2016 10:08, Ondřej Caletka wrote:
On 22.9.2016 v 23:07 Carlos Friacas wrote:
Tunnels? seriously? no, please... End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using.
+1
+1
[snip] Maybe a better idea would be to create a fund for financial support of IPv6 deployments of providers, especially the big ones. Because most of them have no real technical problems, they just deliberately postpone the IPv6 adoption unless inevitable. The main idea is the later they deploy it, the less money it would cost. They don't have any actual need to deploy it, unless, say, YouTube stops playing HD videos to IPv4 clients. (That would be cool, actually.) I'm fully aware that any such support will be unfair to all those that already used their own money to deploy IPv6. But on the other hand, deploying IPv6 at big providers is in the interest of the RIPE community as a whole.
I'd rather give the money to Google and other large content providers and ask them to stop supporting IPv4. Then let the big telcos deploy IPv6 because finally they will have to unless they want to lose all their customers. Not saying that this is a good idea though...
Regards, Tom
Best Regards, Ondřej Caletka CESNET ---- 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.
---- 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.
---- 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.
On 23/09/16 09:54, Tim Armstrong wrote:
As for lobbying large content providers to rate limit IPv4 or only offer some features over IPv6, I'm all for it! But I wont support the idea of paying them to do so: First because this would be a breach of net-neutrality, and Secondly if they want to be paid to do it I don't think we could afford their price (Netflix's yearly revenue is approximately 314 times RIPE NCC's yearly revenue).
Difference being, that the RIPE NCC isn't supposed to make more revenue than they need to run the show. SixXS was trying to promote IPv6 by exactly doing something similar: listing offerings that are available via IPv6. Maybe we should wish for NNTP to become more popular again. It's one of the things, that's easy to get on IPv6 (for free), not so on IPv4. But again .. this may be the perfect approach: - get large content providers .. like Netflix .. who offer subscription based services maybe to offer discounted packages, if you're on IPv6. But only being able to connect to your service via IPv6 then. They'd still make money and it might actually get some people off their deck chairs. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
On 23/09/16 09:24, Anthony Somerset wrote:
This sounds like the perfect idea though
Lobby the main providers/generators of Internet Bandwidth usage to only support IPv6 on new tech/products - even if only for initial launch phases.
For example Netflix is starting to do UHD/4k, wouldn’t it be great if we could get them and google and others to only offer 4k/UHD on V6 only for a period of time like 3-6 months or even longer.
With my Chairman's hat firmly to one side, I said a long time ago that the best way to ensure IPv6 adoption was to make it a condition of the issuing of the gtld that all .xxx sites were IPv6 only. Nigel
This right here would change the world in a year. While near impossible to actual accomplish, if it did happen you would never see a faster IPv6 deployment rate. +100! Daniel~ On 09/23/2016 04:35 AM, Nigel Titley wrote:
This sounds like the perfect idea though
Lobby the main providers/generators of Internet Bandwidth usage to only support IPv6 on new tech/products - even if only for initial launch phases.
For example Netflix is starting to do UHD/4k, wouldn’t it be great if we could get them and google and others to only offer 4k/UHD on V6 only for a period of time like 3-6 months or even longer. With my Chairman's hat firmly to one side, I said a long time ago that
On 23/09/16 09:24, Anthony Somerset wrote: the best way to ensure IPv6 adoption was to make it a condition of the issuing of the gtld that all .xxx sites were IPv6 only.
Nigel
---- 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.
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
-Tim
On 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote: On 09/22/2016 01:57 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:
I'm not saying that a discussion is bad, but I'm simply saying
> > > > > > 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
Hi, If we are to base membership fees on resources then the only way that makes sense today is to make it really expensive if you're not giving your subscribers ipv6 addresses. Could even have it with multiple tiers majority of subs singlestacked ipv4: really expensive majority dualstacked: fairly cheap majority of subs singlestacked ipv6: really cheap This makes it very easy for all the new "small" LIRs to reach the fairly cheap fee, as they don't have a lot of subscribers to dualstack. And it gives incentive for every LIR to at least dualstack, maybe move away from ipv4 all together. Also to ensure that their subscriber base have modern equipment capable of handling ipv6. The final /22 ipv4 is enough to serve huge numbers of eyeball subscribers, if used wisely for supporting services and nat64 pools (or similar technology). And as more and more services get ipv6 the number of subscribers served through those pools can be increased even further. /Robin On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:51 +0200, Tim Armstrong wrote: persons similar to the service currently offered by hurricane electric. that most of the discussions are being had are not based on fact. 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.
---- 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.
Robin, Not to be rude, but we've already explained why this is not possible for RIPE to do several times in this thread both from a financial and legal perspective. Daniel~ On 09/23/2016 05:30 AM, Robin Johansson wrote:
Hi,
If we are to base membership fees on resources then the only way that makes sense today is to make it really expensive if you're not giving your subscribers ipv6 addresses.
Could even have it with multiple tiers majority of subs singlestacked ipv4: really expensive majority dualstacked: fairly cheap majority of subs singlestacked ipv6: really cheap
This makes it very easy for all the new "small" LIRs to reach the fairly cheap fee, as they don't have a lot of subscribers to dualstack. And it gives incentive for every LIR to at least dualstack, maybe move away from ipv4 all together. Also to ensure that their subscriber base have modern equipment capable of handling ipv6.
The final /22 ipv4 is enough to serve huge numbers of eyeball subscribers, if used wisely for supporting services and nat64 pools (or similar technology). And as more and more services get ipv6 the number of subscribers served through those pools can be increased even further.
/Robin
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:51 +0200, Tim Armstrong wrote:
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 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl <mailto:bos@je-eigen-domein.nl>> wrote:
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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- 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.
---- 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.
Hi, No, not really. The legal/financial perspective has been that RIPE is a non-for-profit organisation. This proposal doesn't imply that the aggregated membership fees should exceed the running costs for the oranisation. Only how they are distributed among the members. Much of the discussion has been that it's unfair that new LIRs with only a /22 ipv4 have to pay as much as all others. A new LIR is in a good position to dualstack every single device from the start, meaning that if they can end up with a lower fee than the older LIRs, who have millions of devices to dualstack before they qualify for the lower fee. The real difficulty would be how to measure the actual distribution. It likely that this model doesn't cause a much larger cost for the large players than today, but it also means that a new provider that choose to offer ipv6-only or dualstacked services get away at a much lower cost. It makes more sense to promote the adoption of todays technology, rather than clinging on to things of the past (IPv4) that can't be changed enough to make a difference anyhow. Example of weights singelstacked ipv6, factor 1 dualstacked, factor 10 singlestacked ipv4, factor 1000 Over time the amount of singlestacked ipv4 LIRs will go away, which means that we slowly move back towards the same equal fee structure we have today. /Robin On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 07:27 -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Robin,
Not to be rude, but we've already explained why this is not
possible for RIPE to do several times in this thread both from
financial and legal perspective.
Daniel~
On 09/23/2016 05:30 AM, Robin Johansson wrote:
Hi,
If we
are to base membership fees on resources then the only way that makes sense today is to make it really expensive if you're not giving your subscribers ipv6 addresses.
Could even have it with multiple tiers
majority of subs singlestacked ipv4: really expensive
majority dualstacked: fairly cheap
majority of subs singlestacked ipv6: really cheap
This
makes it very easy for all the new "small" LIRs to reach
fairly cheap fee, as they don't have a lot of subscribers to dualstack. And it gives incentive for every LIR to at least dualstack, maybe move away from ipv4 all together. Also to ensure that their subscriber base have modern equipment capable of handling ipv6.
The final /22 ipv4 is enough to serve huge numbers of eyeball
subscribers, if used wisely for supporting services and nat64 pools (or similar technology).
And as more and more services get ipv6 the number of subscribers served through those pools can be increased even further.
/Robin
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:51 +0200, Tim Armstrong wrote:
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
IPv6 tunnel service for natural persons similar to the service currently offered by hurricane electric. -Tim
On 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris
Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote:
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.
----
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
https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
----
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
a the public the general page: 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.
---- 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.
Robin, There is one big question. How are you going to prove, that my network, which you won't have an inside view on, is indeed dual stacked. I can request an IPv6 block, I can tell you I'm using it but if you go and try to prove that you would end up over stepping the bounds as RIPE. Daniel~ On 09/23/2016 08:22 AM, Robin Johansson wrote:
Hi,
No, not really. The legal/financial perspective has been that RIPE is a non-for-profit organisation. This proposal doesn't imply that the aggregated membership fees should exceed the running costs for the oranisation. Only how they are distributed among the members.
Much of the discussion has been that it's unfair that new LIRs with only a /22 ipv4 have to pay as much as all others. A new LIR is in a good position to dualstack every single device from the start, meaning that if they can end up with a lower fee than the older LIRs, who have millions of devices to dualstack before they qualify for the lower fee.
The real difficulty would be how to measure the actual distribution.
It likely that this model doesn't cause a much larger cost for the large players than today, but it also means that a new provider that choose to offer ipv6-only or dualstacked services get away at a much lower cost.
It makes more sense to promote the adoption of todays technology, rather than clinging on to things of the past (IPv4) that can't be changed enough to make a difference anyhow.
Example of weights singelstacked ipv6, factor 1 dualstacked, factor 10 singlestacked ipv4, factor 1000
Over time the amount of singlestacked ipv4 LIRs will go away, which means that we slowly move back towards the same equal fee structure we have today.
/Robin
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 07:27 -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote:
Robin,
Not to be rude, but we've already explained why this is not possible for RIPE to do several times in this thread both from a financial and legal perspective.
Daniel~
On 09/23/2016 05:30 AM, Robin Johansson wrote:
Hi,
If we are to base membership fees on resources then the only way that makes sense today is to make it really expensive if you're not giving your subscribers ipv6 addresses.
Could even have it with multiple tiers majority of subs singlestacked ipv4: really expensive majority dualstacked: fairly cheap majority of subs singlestacked ipv6: really cheap
This makes it very easy for all the new "small" LIRs to reach the fairly cheap fee, as they don't have a lot of subscribers to dualstack. And it gives incentive for every LIR to at least dualstack, maybe move away from ipv4 all together. Also to ensure that their subscriber base have modern equipment capable of handling ipv6.
The final /22 ipv4 is enough to serve huge numbers of eyeball subscribers, if used wisely for supporting services and nat64 pools (or similar technology). And as more and more services get ipv6 the number of subscribers served through those pools can be increased even further.
/Robin
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:51 +0200, Tim Armstrong wrote:
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 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl <mailto:bos@je-eigen-domein.nl>> wrote:
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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- 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.
---- 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.
---- 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.
---- 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.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 13:57, Daniel Pearson wrote:
year, I would assume only 3,000~ or less have just a single /22 associated to their account. Just as a rough number I came up with about
6070 this evening. I'm talking about a single /22, not necessarily all "last /8". Compared to ~10600 "last /8 allocations". That makes holders of "only a /22" 42% of the membership. 7838 LIRs with equivalent of /21 or less, that's more than half of the membership. They total less than a /8. 2 biggest LIRs have *EACH* of them more than the all the smallest 50% of the LIRs together. Third and fourth biggest LIRs have *TOGETHER* less space than the second biggest. 68 LIRs have more than 1 million IPs each (65 if we count 1 million as 1024*1024). Just numbers obtained in less than 30 minutes from alloclist.txt.
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 09:44:40PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
Okay - I wrote a quick script to parse alloclist.txt (so this only counts LIRs with an IPv4 or IPv6 allocation): (NEW LIR = first IPv4 allocation is after 2012-09-14, the date of RIPE entering the last /8 phase) 13926 LIRs Found 6212 NEW LIRs Found 168 NEW LIRs have more than 1 IPv4 Allocation LIR per country (sorted by number of LIRs): uk 1570 ( 718 NEW) de 1371 ( 552 NEW) ru 1294 ( 402 NEW) fr 828 ( 428 NEW) nl 806 ( 413 NEW) it 804 ( 335 NEW) es 677 ( 328 NEW) ch 470 ( 208 NEW) pl 456 ( 241 NEW) cz 373 ( 165 NEW) se 368 ( 115 NEW) tr 322 ( 185 NEW) ir 312 ( 189 NEW) no 298 ( 147 NEW) at 267 ( 117 NEW) dk 247 ( 131 NEW) ua 237 ( 98 NEW) be 211 ( 92 NEW) fi 189 ( 65 NEW) us 186 ( 166 NEW) ie 171 ( 75 NEW) eu 130 ( 25 NEW) hu 128 ( 43 NEW) bg 120 ( 40 NEW) ro 112 ( 30 NEW) lb 102 ( 71 NEW) sa 100 ( 40 NEW) sk 96 ( 40 NEW) rs 93 ( 34 NEW) il 91 ( 54 NEW) iq 91 ( 55 NEW) lu 71 ( 31 NEW) ge 68 ( 41 NEW) ae 61 ( 36 NEW) si 60 ( 19 NEW) lt 60 ( 24 NEW) gr 58 ( 24 NEW) is 57 ( 26 NEW) ee 57 ( 31 NEW) kz 56 ( 14 NEW) lv 53 ( 13 NEW) cy 53 ( 27 NEW) pt 53 ( 25 NEW) hr 50 ( 27 NEW) az 43 ( 12 NEW) ba 38 ( 10 NEW) jo 37 ( 8 NEW) kw 35 ( 11 NEW) sy 35 ( 20 NEW) al 35 ( 12 NEW) md 32 ( 13 NEW) ps 29 ( 12 NEW) mt 26 ( 11 NEW) mk 24 ( 5 NEW) am 24 ( 7 NEW) uz 21 ( 5 NEW) by 20 ( 7 NEW) li 19 ( 7 NEW) kg 18 ( 7 NEW) bh 18 ( 2 NEW) sc 14 ( 12 NEW) me 14 ( 6 NEW) qa 12 ( 6 NEW) gi 12 ( 4 NEW) vg 12 ( 11 NEW) sm 10 ( 6 NEW) in 9 ( 7 NEW) tj 9 ( 2 NEW) om 9 ( 4 NEW) ca 8 ( 8 NEW) im 8 ( 5 NEW) bz 7 ( 5 NEW) au 6 ( 5 NEW) hk 5 ( 5 NEW) gg 5 ( 3 NEW) ye 5 ( 3 NEW) pa 5 ( 5 NEW) mc 4 ( 1 NEW) va 4 ( 3 NEW) gl 4 ( 2 NEW) je 3 ( 1 NEW) ad 3 ( 2 NEW) cw 3 ( 1 NEW) fo 2 ( 0 NEW) re 2 ( 2 NEW) cn 2 ( 1 NEW) tm 2 ( 0 NEW) za 1 ( 1 NEW) ai 1 ( 1 NEW) br 1 ( 0 NEW) cl 1 ( 1 NEW) ky 1 ( 0 NEW) nz 1 ( 1 NEW) co 1 ( 1 NEW) ao 1 ( 1 NEW) ve 1 ( 1 NEW) ph 1 ( 1 NEW) jp 1 ( 1 NEW) ax 1 ( 0 NEW) sg 1 ( 1 NEW) mu 1 ( 1 NEW) dm 1 ( 1 NEW) eg 1 ( 1 NEW) LIR per country (sorted by number of NEW LIRs): uk 1570 ( 718 NEW) de 1371 ( 552 NEW) fr 828 ( 428 NEW) nl 806 ( 413 NEW) ru 1294 ( 402 NEW) it 804 ( 335 NEW) es 677 ( 328 NEW) pl 456 ( 241 NEW) ch 470 ( 208 NEW) ir 312 ( 189 NEW) tr 322 ( 185 NEW) us 186 ( 166 NEW) cz 373 ( 165 NEW) no 298 ( 147 NEW) dk 247 ( 131 NEW) at 267 ( 117 NEW) se 368 ( 115 NEW) ua 237 ( 98 NEW) be 211 ( 92 NEW) ie 171 ( 75 NEW) lb 102 ( 71 NEW) fi 189 ( 65 NEW) iq 91 ( 55 NEW) il 91 ( 54 NEW) hu 128 ( 43 NEW) ge 68 ( 41 NEW) bg 120 ( 40 NEW) sk 96 ( 40 NEW) sa 100 ( 40 NEW) ae 61 ( 36 NEW) rs 93 ( 34 NEW) lu 71 ( 31 NEW) ee 57 ( 31 NEW) ro 112 ( 30 NEW) cy 53 ( 27 NEW) hr 50 ( 27 NEW) is 57 ( 26 NEW) eu 130 ( 25 NEW) pt 53 ( 25 NEW) gr 58 ( 24 NEW) lt 60 ( 24 NEW) sy 35 ( 20 NEW) si 60 ( 19 NEW) kz 56 ( 14 NEW) lv 53 ( 13 NEW) md 32 ( 13 NEW) sc 14 ( 12 NEW) ps 29 ( 12 NEW) az 43 ( 12 NEW) al 35 ( 12 NEW) kw 35 ( 11 NEW) mt 26 ( 11 NEW) vg 12 ( 11 NEW) ba 38 ( 10 NEW) ca 8 ( 8 NEW) jo 37 ( 8 NEW) by 20 ( 7 NEW) li 19 ( 7 NEW) in 9 ( 7 NEW) kg 18 ( 7 NEW) am 24 ( 7 NEW) qa 12 ( 6 NEW) sm 10 ( 6 NEW) me 14 ( 6 NEW) hk 5 ( 5 NEW) mk 24 ( 5 NEW) im 8 ( 5 NEW) uz 21 ( 5 NEW) au 6 ( 5 NEW) bz 7 ( 5 NEW) pa 5 ( 5 NEW) om 9 ( 4 NEW) gi 12 ( 4 NEW) gg 5 ( 3 NEW) ye 5 ( 3 NEW) va 4 ( 3 NEW) tj 9 ( 2 NEW) re 2 ( 2 NEW) ad 3 ( 2 NEW) bh 18 ( 2 NEW) gl 4 ( 2 NEW) za 1 ( 1 NEW) ai 1 ( 1 NEW) mc 4 ( 1 NEW) cl 1 ( 1 NEW) nz 1 ( 1 NEW) co 1 ( 1 NEW) ao 1 ( 1 NEW) je 3 ( 1 NEW) ve 1 ( 1 NEW) ph 1 ( 1 NEW) jp 1 ( 1 NEW) cw 3 ( 1 NEW) cn 2 ( 1 NEW) sg 1 ( 1 NEW) mu 1 ( 1 NEW) dm 1 ( 1 NEW) eg 1 ( 1 NEW) br 1 ( 0 NEW) fo 2 ( 0 NEW) ky 1 ( 0 NEW) tm 2 ( 0 NEW) ax 1 ( 0 NEW)
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 02:45:40PM +0100, Simon Lockhart wrote:
Okay - I wrote a quick script to parse alloclist.txt (so this only counts LIRs with an IPv4 or IPv6 allocation):
May also be of interest: LIR count by year of first IPv4 allocation Year LIRs ---- ---- 1984 4 1986 1 1988 3 1989 4 1990 5 1991 13 1992 11 1993 56 1994 30 1995 66 1996 190 1997 177 1998 182 1999 295 2000 447 2001 394 2002 239 2003 340 2004 396 2005 558 2006 466 2007 551 2008 646 2009 579 2010 630 2011 662 2012 804 2013 968 2014 1294 2015 1847 2016 1826
Simon, What about a small RIPE Labs article, if you're keen on sharing the script code? ;-) Regards, Carlos On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 02:45:40PM +0100, Simon Lockhart wrote:
Okay - I wrote a quick script to parse alloclist.txt (so this only counts LIRs with an IPv4 or IPv6 allocation):
May also be of interest:
LIR count by year of first IPv4 allocation
Year LIRs ---- ---- 1984 4 1986 1 1988 3 1989 4 1990 5 1991 13 1992 11 1993 56 1994 30 1995 66 1996 190 1997 177 1998 182 1999 295 2000 447 2001 394 2002 239 2003 340 2004 396 2005 558 2006 466 2007 551 2008 646 2009 579 2010 630 2011 662 2012 804 2013 968 2014 1294 2015 1847 2016 1826
---- 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.
Dear Arash, We just wanted to confirm that there are currently 6,203 LIRs that hold a /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space. Out of these, 444 LIRs have more than one /22 from this block, and together they hold 1,423 /22s. Kind regards, Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC
On 22 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, Those so called small minority have the same right as the others thinking they are majority, thats why every organization has a right to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a level of fairness, while you can spend more time on those real issues :)
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22. And the number of those new members are more than the old ones which are making a fortune by selling their unused IPv4 to them.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
Cheers,
Arash
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net <mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net>> wrote: I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly spouting off about things.
I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result in a substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid points as far as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a market monopoly etc, yet the vast majority of the people crying for change have produced nothing substantial.
As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on reality, then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is, let's move on to something more realistic, such as the folks getting /29 legacy assignments just to snag a LIR account as well as folks opening multiple LIR accounts with the hopes of transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those are real issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's not fair lets make it fair.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote: I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised? Wow. Just wow.
Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim.
All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. (This applies to PA space too)
None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion situation anyway.
It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the items in this thread.
BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair rearrangement project?
Ian
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. ---- 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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- 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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/>
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- 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.
Dear Andrew, Am I correct in assuming that all of those with more than one /22 from 185/8 did so via the various loopholes that have been closed over the last year? -Tim On 23 Sep 2016 8:43 a.m., "Andrew de la Haye" <andrewh@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Arash,
We just wanted to confirm that there are currently 6,203 LIRs that hold a /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space. Out of these, 444 LIRs have more than one /22 from this block, and together they hold 1,423 /22s.
Kind regards,
Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC
On 22 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, Those so called small minority have the same right as the others thinking they are majority, thats why every organization has a right to vote. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a level of fairness, while you can spend more time on those real issues :)
Maybe 1k Euro is nothing to many members, but it is something important the end-users that recently had to become a RIPE NCC member, to just receive an small block of /22. And the number of those new members are more than the old ones which are making a fortune by selling their unused IPv4 to them.
Can anyone from RIPE NCC tell me how many members are holding just an /22?
Cheers,
Arash
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net
wrote:
I agree that people need to do a LOT more research before randomly spouting off about things.
I spent several hours showing that any change made will not result in a substantial financial impact as well as others bringing valid points as far as Legacy blocks, European laws in regards to a market monopoly etc, yet the vast majority of the people crying for change have produced nothing substantial.
As far as I'm concerned if they can't produce a plan, based on reality, then this is a dead discussion. Things should stay as is, let's move on to something more realistic, such as the folks getting /29 legacy assignments just to snag a LIR account as well as folks opening multiple LIR accounts with the hopes of transferring the /22 into a single account one day. Those are real issues that can and should be addressed more so than the small minority who thinks everything in life should be fair and if it's not fair lets make it fair.
Daniel~
On 09/22/2016 05:18 AM, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably
have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections. I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'. It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now. We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it. The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market. Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space. What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for? I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation. I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee. If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest. Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders where if they return 50% of their space or more they can stay on the current charging scheme but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
Wow. Just wow.
Legacy space is out of scope for RIPE policy for charging and reclaim.
All sorts of organisations have need for addresses that may not be obvious from the outside, but that does not make them selfish. (This applies to PA space too)
None of this would make any substantial difference to the exhaustion situation anyway.
It would be nice if a little more research was apparent in some of the items in this thread.
BTW, How advanced is your IPv6 deployment compared to your deckchair rearrangement project?
Ian
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. ---- 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.
---- 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.
---- 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.
---- 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.
On 22/09/2016 18:53, Andrew de la Haye wrote:
Dear Arash,
We just wanted to confirm that there are currently 6,203 LIRs that hold a /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space. Out of these, 444 LIRs have more than one /22 from this block, and together they hold 1,423 /22s.
Kind regards,
Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC
Andrew, I snorted my diet coke out my nose when I read "currently 6,203 LIRs that hold a /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space". Now to go clean up my keyboard :-) -Hank
Please disregard me from the conversation of this "discussion" group, best regards, Petr Novák SafeDX s.r.o. ________________________________ Od: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> za uživatele Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> Odesláno: 23. září 2016 9:49 Komu: Andrew de la Haye Kopie: members-discuss@ripe.net Předmět: Re: [members-discuss] [cs] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model On 22/09/2016 18:53, Andrew de la Haye wrote: Dear Arash, We just wanted to confirm that there are currently 6,203 LIRs that hold a /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space. Out of these, 444 LIRs have more than one /22 from this block, and together they hold 1,423 /22s. Kind regards, Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC Andrew, I snorted my diet coke out my nose when I read "currently 6,203 LIRs that hold a /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space". Now to go clean up my keyboard :-) -Hank
On 23/09/16 09:00, Novák Petr wrote:
Please disregard me from the conversation of this "discussion" group,
At the bottom of this (and every email on this list) are the full instructions for removing yourself. Pity you've decided to remove yourself from the discussion of what intimately concerns you and your business though. Best regards Nigel
Hi, (please see inline) On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Academia NOC wrote:
I do find it entertaining that the legacy resource holders that probably have WAY WAY more space than they need and refuse to return their surplus for the good of the internet have objections.
"for the good of the internet"? That line was crossed when markets were enabled......
I feel this is because their bosses would then start asking if the need it all. They'd then be pressured financially to return their 'cushions'.
Do you mean "sell" or "lease"?
It boils down to selfishness and not working towards the common good of the internet. Just because you got it when we were careless as an industry doesn't mean you should hoard it now.
You might want to look again what "Legacy" means. RIPE (through the RIPE/NCC) might reach a point where it can stop providing services to "legacy space". If that happens, the next question is where will "legacy space holders" get service from...
We should bill legacy holders per /24 and they can then pay for the unused space or return it.
"We" can't really decide on how legacy resource holders use their address space. "We" can only decide how services are available (or not)...
The maintenance fees can then go to reducing costs to LIRs with limited resources who are truly optimising their resources so they can afford to buy more on the transfer market.
"Legacy resource holders" manage their businesses, "LIRs with limited resources" also manage their businesses. Neither of these categories seems to be a charity... :-)
Or they could do the decent thing and rationalise their requirements and return unused space.
You might want to check the "legacy" definition again. :-))
What does newham council need 65000 odd public ips for? What does a uni need a /16 for?
No idea. Would expect who is managing them to know :-)
I know one uni I visited some friend at that used to give EVERY DEVICE a public IP. That's unacceptable in the current situation.
Different people have different views about NAT! :-) Go ask LEAs if they prefer 1 IP per device or NATs...? ;-)
I even know a trust that has a /20 they use in azure over a VPN that they are using 5-10% of and they frankly said they were keeping it because it was a cheap annual fee.
And they can grow their current operational model if they wish, because they have the addresses to do it.
If it was expensive or per IP they would have only kept a /23 and returned the rest.
It's a risk management issue. What if in 2 years time they would need another /23? How much would they pay for it?
Maybe an amnesty for legacy holders
"Amnesty", as in a pardon for having requested and received IPv4 address space before even the RIPE/NCC (and other RIRs) were created? Sounds really weird to me...
where if they return 50% of their space
People are getting money for their IPv4 assets (or usage rights, or something...), so the concept of "returning" sounds a bit like a romantic idea :-)
or more they can stay on the current charging scheme
Please keep in mind legacy resource holders are getting services from the RIPE/NCC. If they stop receiving those services, they won't stop being holders/owners of their space......
but if they continue to hoard they are penalised?
How do you "hoard" something which is your property? :-) Regards, Carlos
G -- Regards,
Graham Stewart Senior Solutions Architect Network Operation Centre Academia Ltd. (AS47704)
P. +44 (0)1992 703 900
E&OE
On 21 Sep 2016, at 19:21, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
On 21/09/2016 15:46, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk wrote: Hi,
As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described. Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6 services on our networks. If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation. If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if we have no IPv4 registered, we don't get charged anything? We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members. Even though we are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community.
Speaking also as a non-profit, academic LIR with legacy IPv4 address space, I too would be opposed to any charging model whereby the legacy address space was billed based on size. I moved all our address space to within RIPE and thereby pay an additional 450 Euro on top of the 1400 Euro membership fee (50 Euro x 9). I consider that fair.
One has to understand that legacy holders are a minority. The vast majority of LIRs are newcomers. This vast majority can one day wake up and vote to charge all legacy holders a 10,000Euro fee per object - simply because they can. Their fee would go down a bit and legacy holders would either have to leave with their objects or pay through the nose. As in any democracy, there are checks and balances such that the executive branch would have to veto any such proposal. Hopefully.
-Hank
---- 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.
On which forum would it be appropriate to discuss the RIPE Meeting Networking Tool? Thanks, Hank
Hello Hank, I am not sure what the nature of your proposed discussion would be, however if you have specific questions regarding the tool you could best direct them to our web services team at ws@ripe.net Kind regards, Serge Radovcic Chief Communications Officer RIPE NCC Op 26/04/17 om 01:41 schreef Hank Nussbacher:
On which forum would it be appropriate to discuss the RIPE Meeting Networking Tool?
Thanks, Hank
---- 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.
participants (36)
-
Academia NOC -
Andrew de la Haye -
Anthony Somerset -
Arash Naderpour -
Bastien Schils -
Brandon Butterworth -
Carlos Friacas -
Daniel Baeza -
Daniel Pearson -
Dickinson, Ian -
Floris Bos -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
Host.AG -
José Manuel Giner -
Lu Heng -
Lu Heng -
Martin List-Petersen -
Matthias Šubik -
Muntasir.Ali＠newham.gov.uk -
Network Engineers -
Nigel Titley -
Novák Petr -
Ondřej Caletka -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Robin Johansson -
Roger Jørgensen -
Roman Szabados -
Rumy Kanis -
Sebastien Brossier -
Serge Radovcic -
Simon Lockhart -
Simon Lockhart -
Tim Armstrong -
Timo Hopponen -
Tom Lehtinen