Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Continuing this conversation beyond the four day mark costs us all time, which also costs money, the real question is if you think your time spent on this matter is worth more than the ~400 EUR / year you stand to save should you win the argument. Because I'm pretty sure winning this argument is worth way more to those with large IPv4 blocks that you want too slap a not so insignificant additional fee on, and for what, being an older company? If you want to free up more IPv4 space for "the greater good" perhaps try looking at ways to reclaim space from the real bad guys, people who abused the loopholes in the last /8 policy to claim way more than a single /22. Which frankly should be treated with much more animosity than the legacy resource holders who actually brought the internet to the RIPE area before ripe even existed. Frankly, we should all be thanking legacy holders, because with out them, none of us would have jobs. -Tim On 26 Sep 2016 9:26 p.m., "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" < ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: 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 ---- 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 Mon, Sep 26, 2016, at 21:50, Tim Armstrong wrote:
If you want to free up more IPv4 space for "the greater good" perhaps try looking at ways to reclaim space from the real bad guys, people who abused the loopholes in the last /8 policy to claim way more than a single /22. Which frankly should be treated with much more animosity than the legacy resource holders who actually brought the internet to the RIPE area before
This exactly the reason which pushes me to support the differentiated fees model. "greater good" is very relative. Who is an old player to explain a new one that "a /22 is enough for you, if you want more of them you are a [choose your favourite insult]". Who is an old player to explain me "all you have to do is deploy IPv6" and at the same time say "we need to keep IPv4 for new players 5-10 years in the future" ? Probably a competitor that can differentiate on the "ipv6-resistant" market by their ability to provide "IPv4 as needed". Contrary to a new one that is supposed to serve customers from behind CGN (and loose lots of contracts because of that).
On 26/09/2016 22:50, Tim Armstrong wrote:
Continuing this conversation beyond the four day mark costs us all time, which also costs money, the real question is if you think your time spent on this matter is worth more than the ~400 EUR / year you stand to save should you win the argument.
Simply because not everyone arguing here is in it to save 400 Euro/yr. There are those who trade in IP addresses and make far more money than 400 Euro and will invest enormous amounts of time so that their business model continues to thrive for the next 5 years.
Because I'm pretty sure winning this argument is worth way more to those with large IPv4 blocks that you want too slap a not so insignificant additional fee on, and for what, being an older company? If you want to free up more IPv4 space for "the greater good" perhaps try looking at ways to reclaim space from the real bad guys, people who abused the loopholes in the last /8 policy to claim way more than a single /22. Which frankly should be treated with much more animosity than the legacy resource holders who actually brought the internet to the RIPE area before ripe even existed.
Thanks for the words of support. Regards, Hank
participants (3)
-
Hank Nussbacher -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Tim Armstrong