Re: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
Hi Tony, 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing. The rest is just noise. Paolo
Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it.
All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does in the telecoms market.
IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help)
Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help)
So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a difference.
Tony
*From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
Hi All,
Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively.
Hugs,
---
Joao Silveira
logo
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote:
Hi All,
A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP’s ...
What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market ....
Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ...
Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000
Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine.
Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage
and of course lack of Government funding.
First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce....
Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce.
They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not.
Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service.
Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”.
With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP’s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge.
The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed).
You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ...
So charging won’t necessarily work.
Regards
Tony
*From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 *To:* RIPE *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
Hi All,
I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly.
I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change.
This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively.
Merry Christmas, Oliver
On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe@centronet.cz <mailto:ripe@centronet.cz>> wrote:
Hello,
everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way.
While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding.
Merry Christmas to everyone
Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > money in the denial phase.
Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :)
A.
---- 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/view
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/view
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/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
On 16/12/2013 12:53, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing.
the law will need to catch up with reality. Nick
6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing.
the law will need to catch up with reality.
Nick
the law is following the right principle AND the reality, the problem is that the current market is NOT following the right principle NOR the reality, i.e. move to IPv6 This is happening ONLY because large ISP love to keep this as they are (my opinion) For sure we need the European goverment to go into this and BY LAW force large providers (especially mobile) to provide at least native IPv6. Not tomorrow, not today, YESTERDAY! As I said, the rest is just market excuses Regards Paolo -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
Hi All, I have now some specials brains working around IPv6 in New York, and soon we be able to reach any IPv4 through IPv6 even this have only IPv4 resources. :-) Wait. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:53:19 +0100, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
Hi Tony,
1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively
3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying
sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment from whoever should do
6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL
IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast thing.
The rest is just noise.
Paolo
Yep we are going
for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. All I was saying is charging for each IP's won't work where as it does in the telecoms market. IP Market = resource < demand (charging won't help) Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won't make a difference. Tony *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [1] [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [2]] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net [3] *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira logo On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: Hi All, A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won't work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP's ... What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market .... Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage and of course lack of Government funding. First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, "hey we can get some more". With IP's that's different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP's will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. The only IP's you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP's are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ... So charging won't necessarily work. Regards Tony *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [4] members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [5]] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 *To:* RIPE *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net [6] members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively. Merry Christmas, Oliver On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" > wrote: Hello, everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. Merry Christmas to everyone Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [8] members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [9] members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net [10] members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering > wrote:
IPv4 is *gone*, get
over it. No matter of discussion here or
elsewhere
will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you
style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; marg
width:100%">money in the denial phase. Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way th
y :) A. ---- If you o 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/view [12] 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/view [13] 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/view [14] Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it [15] ---- 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/view [16] Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Links: ------ [1] mailto:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [2] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [3] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net [4] mailto:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [5] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [6] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net [7] mailto:ripe@centronet.cz [8] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [9] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [10] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net [11] mailto:gert@space.net [12] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [13] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [14] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [15] http://www.level7.it [16] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
On 12/16/2013 02:07 PM, Joao Silveira wrote:
Hi All,
I have now some specials brains working around IPv6 in New York, and soon we be able to reach any IPv4 through IPv6 even this have only IPv4 resources.
:-)
Wait.
Hugs,
---
Joao Silveira
logo
You are talking about NAT64 and DNS64? But what if Your customers have only IPv4 CPE-s? How will your IPv6 customer establish IPSec with ipv4 only customer? Regards, Rade Djurasinovic
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:53:19 +0100, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
Hi Tony,
1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing.
The rest is just noise.
Paolo
IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and money in the denial phase. Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) A. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR
Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. All I was saying is charging for each IP's won't work where as it does in the telecoms market. IP Market = resource < demand (charging won't help) Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won't make a difference. Tony *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira logo On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: Hi All, A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won't work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP's ... What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market .... Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage and of course lack of Government funding. First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, "hey we can get some more". With IP's that's different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP's will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. The only IP's you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP's are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ... So charging won't necessarily work. Regards Tony *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 *To:* RIPE *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively. Merry Christmas, Oliver On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe@centronet.cz <mailto:ripe@centronet.cz> ripe@centronet.cz>> wrote: Hello, everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. Merry Christmas to everyone Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net> gert@space.net>> wrote: 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/view 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
--
Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web:http://www.level7.it
---- 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/view
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/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Not even needed to go exponential, just make it linear. Say something like 10 cent per IP per year on average (or whatever "class" model that ends up around there) : any LIR with less than a /20 will pay less than now, who has allocated something around a /8-/16 will have to rethink about moving to IPv6 (or release the addresses, if they are not using them). A. On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Paolo Di Francesco <paolo.difrancesco@level7.it> wrote:
Hi Tony,
1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing.
The rest is just noise.
Paolo
Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it.
All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does in the telecoms market.
IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help)
Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help)
So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a difference.
Tony
*From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
Hi All,
Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively.
Hugs,
---
Joao Silveira
logo
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote:
Hi All,
A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP’s ...
What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market ....
Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ...
Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000
Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine.
Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage
and of course lack of Government funding.
First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce....
Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce.
They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not.
Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service.
Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”.
With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP’s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge.
The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed).
You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ...
So charging won’t necessarily work.
Regards
Tony
*From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 *To:* RIPE *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
Hi All,
I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly.
I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change.
This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively.
Merry Christmas, Oliver
On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe@centronet.cz <mailto:ripe@centronet.cz>> wrote:
Hello,
everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way.
While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding.
Merry Christmas to everyone
Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and money in the denial phase.
Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :)
A.
---- 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/view
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/view
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/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
--
Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
---- 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/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Linear has no sense for a scarse resourse: the more you get the more you pay. Linear does not follow that simple principle. So if you really would see people implementing IPv6, then maybe not exponential but for sure not linear
Not even needed to go exponential, just make it linear.
Say something like 10 cent per IP per year on average (or whatever "class" model that ends up around there) : any LIR with less than a /20 will pay less than now, who has allocated something around a /8-/16 will have to rethink about moving to IPv6 (or release the addresses, if they are not using them).
A.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
Hi, On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:53:19PM +0100, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is crazy to me, but they say they prefer it.
I recommend that to all my competitors. It's their business decision, or maybe, out-of-business decision. We'll see...
2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively
An eyeball ISP will need to provide access to IPv4 service today, this nobody doubts. But this can be done with MAP or DS-Lite today, requiring much less IPv4 address space than for an IPv4-only ISP. Furthermore, the largest content in the world (Google, Youtube, Facebook, Akamai) is already IPv6 capable.
3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount.
Look again. Many of the largest Telcos in the world are already deploying IPv6 today. Like, Deutsche Telekom. [..]
6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing.
Then maybe you should work on that part as well. Regulations can be changed (if you find a working government). But I think it's great of some of the competition disappears from the market. More margin for the rest. 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
participants (6)
-
Andrea Cocito -
Gert Doering -
Joao Silveira -
Nick Hilliard -
Paolo Di Francesco -
Rade Djurasinovic