Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month
Hello everyone, As mentioned during the presentation at the GM last week, the Charging Scheme Task Force is interested in your comments and suggestions on our draft report, until the end of May 2025. Here's a link to the draft report, for your perusal. https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Draft_Report_of_the_RIPE_NCC_Charging_S... We welcome comments either on the members-discuss list here or you can email them directly to us at: charging-scheme-task-force2024@ripe.net. While we do not want to discourage any discussion, the Task Force is unable to consider comments made elsewhere. Best Regards, Peter Hessler Co-Chair Charging Scheme Task Force
Hello everyone, I would like again say my opinion on the Charging Scheme issue. And I hope be heard by both a responsible active group and an active part of the community. When we discussing the Charging Scheme, we should not focus on the issues of its size or on "compensation" for the lack of resources for newcomers. We should focus on solving the real problems of the RIPE NCC community. We need now to solve the problem of executing the main RIPE and NCC function! The community was created and we joined as its members to organize an open and stable inter-network interaction. But now, we have the systematic problem of lack of IPv4 and AS 32 resources. This creates unequal market conditions for new and old players. This discrediting RIPE NCC as a community of equals. We really need to do something about this! Why is so bad? Let's look at the current picture in the submitted document: https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Draft_Report_of_the_RIPE_NCC_Charging_S... Appendix 1: Distribution of IPv4/IPv6/ASNs/IPv4 PI/IPv6 PI among members Table: IPv4 /24 Independent Resources Held per LIR Account On page 17. What do we see? Most of the LIR (95% or 20,058 out of 21248 members) these are holders of a small number of addresses (categories A-J). They have less than 10% IPv4 at their disposal. And there are 1190 members (5%) who manage 90% of the address space. Among them are large telecom holding companies. There are no more available IPv4 addresses. Admittedly, we have seen monopolized the market for IPv4 address services. Why? These companies (as being major players) are the least interested in changing the situation, including switching to IPv6. On RIPE's errors approach to address allocation, they have become owners of a large unical resource. Keeping this resource on their balance sheet costs them nothing. But with the current "market" price of 1 IPv4 at $ 50, it significantly increases their own market value. And MORE! It prevents new large concurrent from entering the market. What to do? One of the few solutions to this problem is to create conditions where retaining a large number of scarce resources will become economically unprofitable! The solution to this problem is to charge for such a resource! And this fee should be substantial for large holders. I am categorically against any Charging Scheme "with categories". Why? Because as you see we have problems with a LARGE size holders! 1. If it will be Scheme where the cost depends nonlinearly on the number of addresses. Then the sale one network /24 covers the cost of a fee for several years. Big holders will never have an interest in releasing resources. 2. If it will be Scheme "with categories" where the cost depends linearly on the number of addresses (even on the upper bound) it will also be ineffective. Holders have no interest in freeing up resources, because to change their payment, HUGE numbers of addresses must be returned simultaneously. It is unreal. So, what to do? The most optimal scenario in my opinion is the following: 1. The annual payment must consist of 2 parts: - The FIXED part - The VARIABLE part is directly dependent on the number of allocated SCARCE resources (now IPv4 and AS32) The amount of payments in this way should not affect the number of LIR votes. 2. In the first years, we have to plan payments and budget so that: - The FIXED part was about 1/4-1/2 of the planned budget - The VARIABLE part covered the rest of the planned budget with a surplus of at least 20%. 3. We must increase the payment for the VARIABLE part annually until at least 15% of the resources become available for distribution. At the same time, the community should allocate the funds received in excess of the planned budget for the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or other new protocols. This can be the preparation of educational programs, the translation of articles into local languages, the completion and popularization of improvements to the IP stack or of training programs, the development of software to simplify migration and other initiatives. --- In hope for your attention. Dmitry Serbulov
Hello everyone,
As mentioned during the presentation at the GM last week, the Charging Scheme Task Force is interested in your comments and suggestions on our draft report, until the end of May 2025.
Here's a link to the draft report, for your perusal. https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Draft_Report_of_the_RIPE_NCC_Charging_S...
We welcome comments either on the members-discuss list here or you can email them directly to us at: charging-scheme-task-force2024@ripe.net. While we do not want to discourage any discussion, the Task Force is unable to consider comments made elsewhere.
Best Regards, Peter Hessler Co-Chair Charging Scheme Task Force ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----------------------------- С уважением Сербулов Дмитрий ООО "Альфа Нет Телеком" +7(498)785-8-000 раб. +7(495)940-92-11 доп. +7(925)518-10-69 сот.
On 23. May 2025, at 14:39, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
The community was created and we joined as its members to organize an open and stable inter-network interaction. But now, we have the systematic problem of lack of IPv4 and AS 32 resources. This creates unequal market conditions for new and old players. This discrediting RIPE NCC as a community of equals. We really need to do something about this!
We did do something about that. It’s called IPv6 and 32bit ASNs (I assume you ment 16bit AS in your text). Anything else is wishful thinking.
These companies (as being major players) are the least interested in changing the situation, including switching to IPv6. On RIPE's errors approach to address allocation, they have become owners of a large unical resource.
I’ve been active in the APWG for many many years now and I don’t recall any policy that was implemented that I would see as an erroneous approach. Also this is the discussion of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme not the APWG. Leaving aside that many large members had their addresses before RIPE and the RIPE NCC existed, many large resource holders DO implement IPv6 because even with their vast address space they run out of it. Otherwise atrocities like CGNAT wouldn’t exist.
We must increase the payment for the VARIABLE part annually until at least 15% of the resources become available for distribution.
How? People are using these resources. And even when the resources can be returned there will NEVER bei 15% available as they would be gone immediately again. It’s just math. We don’t have enough to go around. We did as much as we could so that people would get some resources even after the runout. And even that policy was abused.
At the same time, the community should allocate the funds received in excess of the planned budget for the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or other new protocols. This can be the preparation of educational programs, the translation of articles into local languages, the completion and popularization of improvements to the IP stack or of training programs, the development of software to simplify migration and other initiatives.
“Other new protocols” is something that doesn’t exist and will not exist in any useful timeframe. It’s futile to hope for a magic fix that someone just hasn’t thought about until now. The solution is IPv6 and AS32. The RIPE NCC already does all the things you mentioned. It could do it more effectively maybe but then people scream about the budget again. I don’t see any new arguments in any of these mails, just the wishful thinking that the world shouldn’t be as it is right now. Well, I have this wishful thinking about a lot of things in the world but it doesn’t change the position we’re in now and that there are solutions. Magically manifesting more scarce resources into existence isn’t one and I’m really getting tired of it. Regards Sebastian -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 90471 Nürnberg Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 Fax +49 911 9352 100 Email sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de noris network AG - Mehr Leistung als Standard Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
Am Montag, 26. Mai 2025, 09:45:17 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Sebastian Wiesinger:
“Other new protocols” is something that doesn’t exist and will not exist in any useful timeframe. It’s futile to hope for a magic fix that someone just hasn’t thought about until now. The solution is IPv6 and AS32.
I hear that since many years, but the reality in the countries i'm active in (like Middle East, Africa) "far" from Europe is far from any near or mid-term IPv6 adoption for many reasons. Primary reason is: the local big players are grown historically on IPv4 which scarcity now gives them a huge local market advantage or (oftean hear that vpices as well there) IPv6 does not give them any commercial advantage. But even in big european (non IT) enterprises (hoarding huge amounts of unused public IPv4 space) i see no interest in the implementation of IPv6 in the near to mid term (even in their internal networks). IPv6 is - nor today nor in the near future - no solution to the problems Dmitry mentions here. just my .02€ niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi. I want to remind, that here in THIS mail list members from various big international ISPs PUBLICLY admitted, that they have no intent to implement IPv6 because they have no motivation to do so. They have huge subnets of IPv4 and 0 interest in investing to IPv6. On the other side are (mostly newer) members who already implemented IPv6 everywhere and can be totally happy with that, but IPv6 adoption is low and they have no technical ability to not have IPv4. Charging for resources in my view can help with that. Also slightly balancing expenses between small and large ISPs - so small town ISP will not finance huge RIPE projects like atlas etc. As for the proportions - as far as I know it is illegal (for tax purposes) for RIPE to charge proportional to resource amounts so some kind of “levels” should be. But here I might be wrong or misinformed.
On 27 May 2025, at 12:11, Niels Dettenbach <nd@syndicat.com> wrote:
Am Montag, 26. Mai 2025, 09:45:17 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Sebastian Wiesinger:
“Other new protocols” is something that doesn’t exist and will not exist in any useful timeframe. It’s futile to hope for a magic fix that someone just hasn’t thought about until now. The solution is IPv6 and AS32.
I hear that since many years, but the reality in the countries i'm active in (like Middle East, Africa) "far" from Europe is far from any near or mid-term IPv6 adoption for many reasons. Primary reason is: the local big players are grown historically on IPv4 which scarcity now gives them a huge local market advantage or (oftean hear that vpices as well there) IPv6 does not give them any commercial advantage.
But even in big european (non IT) enterprises (hoarding huge amounts of unused public IPv4 space) i see no interest in the implementation of IPv6 in the near to mid term (even in their internal networks).
IPv6 is - nor today nor in the near future - no solution to the problems Dmitry mentions here.
just my .02€
niels.
-- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, While I appreciate the perspective, I’d suggest that many of those “big ISPs” who are reluctant to implement IPv6 are not simply unmotivated — they are being rational. If you’ve ever priced out true dual-stack backbone-grade routers — the kind required to maintain IPv4+IPv6 parity at scale — and accounted for the fact that these setups must be duplicated to meet modern HA/availability requirements, you’d probably hesitate to “invest” in IPv6 too. The capital expenditure is not trivial. Vendors don’t discount IPv6-ready hardware because it’s the “future.” On the contrary, the complexity, licensing, and redundancy expectations only add to the financial and operational burden. So it’s not always about lacking motivation — sometimes it’s just about responsible budgeting. Sent from my iPhone
On 27 May 2025, at 14:09, Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> wrote:
Hi.
I want to remind, that here in THIS mail list members from various big international ISPs PUBLICLY admitted, that they have no intent to implement IPv6 because they have no motivation to do so. They have huge subnets of IPv4 and 0 interest in investing to IPv6.
On the other side are (mostly newer) members who already implemented IPv6 everywhere and can be totally happy with that, but IPv6 adoption is low and they have no technical ability to not have IPv4.
Charging for resources in my view can help with that. Also slightly balancing expenses between small and large ISPs - so small town ISP will not finance huge RIPE projects like atlas etc.
As for the proportions - as far as I know it is illegal (for tax purposes) for RIPE to charge proportional to resource amounts so some kind of “levels” should be. But here I might be wrong or misinformed.
On 27 May 2025, at 12:11, Niels Dettenbach <nd@syndicat.com> wrote:
Am Montag, 26. Mai 2025, 09:45:17 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Sebastian Wiesinger:
“Other new protocols” is something that doesn’t exist and will not exist in any useful timeframe. It’s futile to hope for a magic fix that someone just hasn’t thought about until now. The solution is IPv6 and AS32.
I hear that since many years, but the reality in the countries i'm active in (like Middle East, Africa) "far" from Europe is far from any near or mid-term IPv6 adoption for many reasons. Primary reason is: the local big players are grown historically on IPv4 which scarcity now gives them a huge local market advantage or (oftean hear that vpices as well there) IPv6 does not give them any commercial advantage.
But even in big european (non IT) enterprises (hoarding huge amounts of unused public IPv4 space) i see no interest in the implementation of IPv6 in the near to mid term (even in their internal networks).
IPv6 is - nor today nor in the near future - no solution to the problems Dmitry mentions here.
just my .02€
niels.
-- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 04:40:30PM +0300, Alexey Berezhnev wrote:
While I appreciate the perspective, I???d suggest that many of those ???big ISPs??? who are reluctant to implement IPv6 are not simply unmotivated ??? they are being rational.
If you???ve ever priced out true dual-stack backbone-grade routers ??? the kind required to maintain IPv4+IPv6 parity at scale ??? and accounted for the fact that these setups must be duplicated to meet modern HA/availability requirements, you???d probably hesitate to ???invest??? in IPv6 too.
The capital expenditure is not trivial. Vendors don???t discount IPv6-ready hardware because it???s the ???future.??? On the contrary, the complexity, licensing, and redundancy expectations only add to the financial and operational burden. So it???s not always about lacking motivation ??? sometimes it???s just about responsible budgeting.
This is all so 1990s. Reasonable vendors these days do not charge extra for v6, and ship FIB space sufficiently large that v6 fits nicely. The v4 routing table is so much larger than the v6 table that if you buy a box that can handle v4's expected fib table growth over the next 5 years, 200k lines for v6 won't make a significant impact. Now, buying 10 year old discounted gear will be cheap - but won't handle full table v4 today (they *will* handle "internal routes + default" v4 *and* v6 just fine). If budget is really tight, get a Linux PC for your routing. Will do v4, v6, and both with full tables... (and with sufficiently recent NICs, well over 100Gbit/s on a single PC, with full tables). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, I'm not sure what routers you are buying, but a router being IPv6 ready has not been a problem for quite a few years now. One of the IPv6 allocations of my employer has been visible since April 2007, and so far we never paid more for IPv6-ready devices. https://stat.ripe.net/widget/routing-history#resource=2001%3A8d8%3A%3A%2F32 I have never seen a router that cost more for IPv6 capabilities or saw IPv6 compatibility advertised as a bleeding-edge feature by any vendor in my professional career. Even the historical Catalyst 6500 series had native IPv6 support and could handle a full global routing table in their time. On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 4:09 PM Alexey Berezhnev <alex@mac3.ru> wrote:
Hi,
While I appreciate the perspective, I’d suggest that many of those “big ISPs” who are reluctant to implement IPv6 are not simply unmotivated — they are being rational.
If you’ve ever priced out true dual-stack backbone-grade routers — the kind required to maintain IPv4+IPv6 parity at scale — and accounted for the fact that these setups must be duplicated to meet modern HA/availability requirements, you’d probably hesitate to “invest” in IPv6 too.
The capital expenditure is not trivial. Vendors don’t discount IPv6-ready hardware because it’s the “future.” On the contrary, the complexity, licensing, and redundancy expectations only add to the financial and operational burden.
So it’s not always about lacking motivation — sometimes it’s just about responsible budgeting.
Sent from my iPhone
On 27 May 2025, at 14:09, Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> wrote:
Hi.
I want to remind, that here in THIS mail list members from various big international ISPs PUBLICLY admitted, that they have no intent to implement IPv6 because they have no motivation to do so. They have huge subnets of IPv4 and 0 interest in investing to IPv6.
On the other side are (mostly newer) members who already implemented IPv6 everywhere and can be totally happy with that, but IPv6 adoption is low and they have no technical ability to not have IPv4.
Charging for resources in my view can help with that. Also slightly balancing expenses between small and large ISPs - so small town ISP will not finance huge RIPE projects like atlas etc.
As for the proportions - as far as I know it is illegal (for tax purposes) for RIPE to charge proportional to resource amounts so some kind of “levels” should be. But here I might be wrong or misinformed.
On 27 May 2025, at 12:11, Niels Dettenbach <nd@syndicat.com> wrote:
Am Montag, 26. Mai 2025, 09:45:17 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Sebastian Wiesinger:
“Other new protocols” is something that doesn’t exist and will not exist in
any useful timeframe. It’s futile to hope for a magic fix that someone
just hasn’t thought about until now. The solution is IPv6 and AS32.
I hear that since many years, but the reality in the countries i'm active in
(like Middle East, Africa) "far" from Europe is far from any near or mid-term
IPv6 adoption for many reasons. Primary reason is: the local big players are
grown historically on IPv4 which scarcity now gives them a huge local market
advantage or (oftean hear that vpices as well there) IPv6 does not give them
any commercial advantage.
But even in big european (non IT) enterprises (hoarding huge amounts of
unused public IPv4 space) i see no interest in the implementation of IPv6 in
the near to mid term (even in their internal networks).
IPv6 is - nor today nor in the near future - no solution to the problems
Dmitry mentions here.
just my .02€
niels.
--
---
Niels Dettenbach
Syndicat IT & Internet
PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc
---
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 04:38:26PM +0200, David Tatlisu via members-discuss wrote:
I have never seen a router that cost more for IPv6 capabilities or saw IPv6 compatibility advertised as a bleeding-edge feature by any vendor in my professional career. Even the historical Catalyst 6500 series had native IPv6 support and could handle a full global routing table in their time.
"Back then", so like 1999-ish, some vendors did have the great idea to make IPv6 support an extra feature you had to pay for. Or spontaneously decided that some hardware would not get the OS upgrade with v6 in it (like, the RSFC for the Cat5500, or the Cisco 4700 router series) so they could sell you new stuff instead. But that was in the dark ages. Not even I am running such old gear anymore. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Le Tue, May 27, 2025 at 04:38:26PM +0200, David Tatlisu via members-discuss a écrit :
Hi, I'm not sure what routers you are buying, but a router being IPv6 ready has not been a problem for quite a few years now. One of the IPv6 allocations of my employer has been visible since April 2007, and so far we never paid more for IPv6-ready devices. https://stat.ripe.net/widget/routing-history#resource=2001%3A8d8%3A%3A%2F32
That really depends on what kind of "advanced feature" you use/want/need. Routing packets is the easy part. When talking about filtering or EVPN or anything more advanced, we can still see that v6 is a second class citizen for some vendors. Also some ISP are IPv6-ready but won't activate it on customer access unless asked for, even when they do it for free and it works great. Denis (who is a strong proponent of IPv6).
Hi, On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 05:28:24PM +0200, Denis Fondras - Liopen via members-discuss wrote:
That really depends on what kind of "advanced feature" you use/want/need. Routing packets is the easy part. When talking about filtering or EVPN or anything more advanced, we can still see that v6 is a second class citizen for some vendors.
Oh, no doubt. Being able to run the management side of an ISP network (radius, tacacs, syslog, snmp) and also the EVPN/VXLAN or MPLS/LDP6 control planes without IPv4 is still a long way to go with some vendors. But this is not really needed to provide v6 support to customers - and "the ugly internal side of things" can run fine on some old RFC1918 space. (Though interesting new developments have come from the DC side of things, where people build whole underlay networks without any v4 or v6 space, just using link-local point-to-point ethernet segments with BGP on top, transporting v4 and v6 as payload) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Many big ISP have implemented ipv6 support (dual stack or alternatives) on their networks (fixed and or mobile) since many years. (like in France, Belgium, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Greece, ….) Strong technical teams that could convince their management to do the effort and/or competitors that started first, are the key differentiators why they support or not ipv6. (personal opinion) Charging scheme will not influence this adoption or increase the available ipv4 addresses for new entrants at low cost. Stop dreaming. Even if the top 3 ISP in RIPE region would have to pay 100% of the membership fees, it will not change their network strategy or convince them to offer part of their ipv4 address on the market. (personal opinion) Charging scheme linked to ipv4 allocation might increase the cost/ipv4 address in address transfers and create the opposite effect of what is desired : making it even more difficult or costly for new entrants. Marc Internal Use Only - Only for Proximus business use. See more on https://www.proximus.com/confidentiality From: Alexey Berezhnev <alex@mac3.ru> Sent: Tuesday 27 May 2025 15:41 To: Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Hi, While I appreciate the perspective, I’d suggest that many of those “big ISPs” who are reluctant to implement IPv6 are not simply unmotivated — they are being rational. If you’ve ever priced out true dual-stack backbone-grade routers — the kind required to maintain IPv4+IPv6 parity at scale — and accounted for the fact that these setups must be duplicated to meet modern HA/availability requirements, you’d probably hesitate to “invest” in IPv6 too. The capital expenditure is not trivial. Vendors don’t discount IPv6-ready hardware because it’s the “future.” On the contrary, the complexity, licensing, and redundancy expectations only add to the financial and operational burden. So it’s not always about lacking motivation — sometimes it’s just about responsible budgeting. Sent from my iPhone On 27 May 2025, at 14:09, Mihail Fedorov <mihail@fedorov.net<mailto:mihail@fedorov.net>> wrote: Hi. I want to remind, that here in THIS mail list members from various big international ISPs PUBLICLY admitted, that they have no intent to implement IPv6 because they have no motivation to do so. They have huge subnets of IPv4 and 0 interest in investing to IPv6. On the other side are (mostly newer) members who already implemented IPv6 everywhere and can be totally happy with that, but IPv6 adoption is low and they have no technical ability to not have IPv4. Charging for resources in my view can help with that. Also slightly balancing expenses between small and large ISPs - so small town ISP will not finance huge RIPE projects like atlas etc. As for the proportions - as far as I know it is illegal (for tax purposes) for RIPE to charge proportional to resource amounts so some kind of “levels” should be. But here I might be wrong or misinformed. On 27 May 2025, at 12:11, Niels Dettenbach <nd@syndicat.com<mailto:nd@syndicat.com>> wrote: Am Montag, 26. Mai 2025, 09:45:17 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Sebastian Wiesinger: “Other new protocols” is something that doesn’t exist and will not exist in any useful timeframe. It’s futile to hope for a magic fix that someone just hasn’t thought about until now. The solution is IPv6 and AS32. I hear that since many years, but the reality in the countries i'm active in (like Middle East, Africa) "far" from Europe is far from any near or mid-term IPv6 adoption for many reasons. Primary reason is: the local big players are grown historically on IPv4 which scarcity now gives them a huge local market advantage or (oftean hear that vpices as well there) IPv6 does not give them any commercial advantage. But even in big european (non IT) enterprises (hoarding huge amounts of unused public IPv4 space) i see no interest in the implementation of IPv6 in the near to mid term (even in their internal networks). IPv6 is - nor today nor in the near future - no solution to the problems Dmitry mentions here. just my .02€ niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc --- ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, I guess the persuading is more about systems integrators and local systems c.q. network administrators. If they don't push or ask about IPv6, end-users will never even be able to use IPv6 even if they wanted to. (Gosh, I miss those SixXS days...) Back in the days but very recently as well, I've met administrators who have "look for IPv6 support and turn it off" almost on the top of their list when onboarding new customers or when installing new (virtual) equipment. It seems if they're actually afraid of the protocol because it looks different. When turning it off, they do not need to think about it any more, there is nothing that could break (because they do not comprehend it) and so on. "Ignorance is bliss." So in short: we (the professional networking community) should actively educate, and then (in that order) maybe even dictate IPv6. Lastly, just a thought to think about: would it be a coincidence that "them" are mostly (if not always) Windows administrators? Cheers, Kees On 27-05-2025 16:55, NEUCKENS Marc via members-discuss wrote:
Strong technical teams that could convince their management to do the effort and/or competitors that started first, are the key differentiators why they support or not ipv6. (personal opinion)
We have several problems. 1. There are enough admins who understand IPv4 with 255 but unfortunately not IPv6. 2. I myself have been on the waiting list for a meager /24 subnet for almost 600 days. 3. The world can do IPv6 but is too good to use it. See Twitter/x.com. 4. Those who make a lot of money from it, like Cogent, rent out IPv4 at prices that I simply find crap. They line their pockets, while others pay the same amount and have to wait 600 days for a /24. That can't be right. The problem shows that we have to work towards goals for equality. - The goal should be to return unused IPv4, either voluntarily or by force. - Putting IPv4 networks on a list that requires a usage fee - Deactivating IPv4 now and definitively at a specific time It can't be that I pay €2,000 for nothing (yes, I have IPv6) while others pocket millions of euros/dollars by renting IPv4. While I wait 600 days for a 24-hour service. This has to end. We need approaches and solutions. Regards, Dirk Walde, CEO of Walde IT-Systeme PS: Your opinions, please. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de - http://www.walde-it.de NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de ** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091 Kees Meijs | Nefos via members-discuss schrieb:
Hi,
I guess the persuading is more about systems integrators and local systems c.q. network administrators. If they don't push or ask about IPv6, end-users will never even be able to use IPv6 even if they wanted to. (Gosh, I miss those SixXS days...)
Back in the days but very recently as well, I've met administrators who have "look for IPv6 support and turn it off" almost on the top of their list when onboarding new customers or when installing new (virtual) equipment. It seems if they're actually afraid of the protocol because it looks different. When turning it off, they do not need to think about it any more, there is nothing that could break (because they do not comprehend it) and so on.
"Ignorance is bliss."
So in short: we (the professional networking community) should actively educate, and then (in that order) maybe even dictate IPv6.
Lastly, just a thought to think about: would it be a coincidence that "them" are mostly (if not always) Windows administrators?
Cheers, Kees
On 27-05-2025 16:55, NEUCKENS Marc via members-discuss wrote:
Strong technical teams that could convince their management to do the effort and/or competitors that started first, are the key differentiators why they support or not ipv6. (personal opinion)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hallo! Also I can understand the frustration I do have to state that we have known for many years that IPv4 are a limited resource. Considering current market prices which are at approx. 35€ per IP a /24 subnet can be purchased for roughly 9.000 Euro. This is, also quite a neat price, still not unaffordable. (Especially when thinking about the price for routers, licenses …) So yes, in the past IPv4 addresses were ‘free’, but that’s not the case any longer. Ranting about it won’t make new IPs materialize out of thin air. What can we do? 1. Push the content deliverers to fully support IPv6 in all their services 2. Train our own customers in the usage of v6 RIPE is already actively hunting down unused resources and are imho doing a good job at it. Taking resources away from their rightful owners? Seriously? I wouldn’t want to walk down that path. Best regards, Karl Kaiser Von: D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus <walde@wcs-online.de> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Mai 2025 23:43 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von walde@wcs-online.de<mailto:walde@wcs-online.de>. Erfahren Sie, warum dies wichtig ist<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> We have several problems. 1. There are enough admins who understand IPv4 with 255 but unfortunately not IPv6. 2. I myself have been on the waiting list for a meager /24 subnet for almost 600 days. 3. The world can do IPv6 but is too good to use it. See Twitter/x.com. 4. Those who make a lot of money from it, like Cogent, rent out IPv4 at prices that I simply find crap. They line their pockets, while others pay the same amount and have to wait 600 days for a /24. That can't be right. The problem shows that we have to work towards goals for equality. - The goal should be to return unused IPv4, either voluntarily or by force. - Putting IPv4 networks on a list that requires a usage fee - Deactivating IPv4 now and definitively at a specific time It can't be that I pay €2,000 for nothing (yes, I have IPv6) while others pocket millions of euros/dollars by renting IPv4. While I wait 600 days for a 24-hour service. This has to end. We need approaches and solutions. Regards, Dirk Walde, CEO of Walde IT-Systeme PS: Your opinions, please. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de<mailto:info@walde-it.de> - http://www.walde-it.de<http://www.walde-it.de/> NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de<mailto:abuse@waldeit.de> ** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091 Kees Meijs | Nefos via members-discuss schrieb: Hi, I guess the persuading is more about systems integrators and local systems c.q. network administrators. If they don't push or ask about IPv6, end-users will never even be able to use IPv6 even if they wanted to. (Gosh, I miss those SixXS days...) Back in the days but very recently as well, I've met administrators who have "look for IPv6 support and turn it off" almost on the top of their list when onboarding new customers or when installing new (virtual) equipment. It seems if they're actually afraid of the protocol because it looks different. When turning it off, they do not need to think about it any more, there is nothing that could break (because they do not comprehend it) and so on. "Ignorance is bliss." So in short: we (the professional networking community) should actively educate, and then (in that order) maybe even dictate IPv6. Lastly, just a thought to think about: would it be a coincidence that "them" are mostly (if not always) Windows administrators? Cheers, Kees On 27-05-2025 16:55, NEUCKENS Marc via members-discuss wrote: Strong technical teams that could convince their management to do the effort and/or competitors that started first, are the key differentiators why they support or not ipv6. (personal opinion) ________________________________ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ________________________________ Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, destroy all copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any purpose. Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhaenge ist vertraulich und koennte bevorrechtigtem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, informieren Sie bitte den Absender unverzueglich, loeschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System und veroeffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich zu welchem Zweck. Think before you print! T-Mobile Austria GmbH Geschaeftsfuehrung: Werner Kraus, Volker Libovsky, Nathalie Rau, Branko Stanchev; Aufsichtsrat: Kyra Orth (Vorsitzende) Firmenbuch: Handelsgericht Wien, Sitz Wien, FN 171112k, UID ATU 45011703, DVR 0898295 Konto: UniCredit Bank Austria AG IBAN: AT93 1200 0528 4407 2301, BIC: BKAUATWW ________________________________
We agree! But with “rightful” being the key word. IP addresses exist to identify devices on an IP network and facilitate routing of IP traffic. If there are addresses without any devices, surely they aren’t being “rightfully used”? Or even “used”? Paul Webb - Director Clearstream Technology Ltd ASN59455 Hallo! Also I can understand the frustration I do have to state that we have known for many years that IPv4 are a limited resource. Considering current market prices which are at approx. 35€ per IP a /24 subnet can be purchased for roughly 9.000 Euro. This is, also quite a neat price, still not unaffordable. (Especially when thinking about the price for routers, licenses …) So yes, in the past IPv4 addresses were ‘free’, but that’s not the case any longer. Ranting about it won’t make new IPs materialize out of thin air. What can we do? 1. Push the content deliverers to fully support IPv6 in all their services 2. Train our own customers in the usage of v6 RIPE is already actively hunting down unused resources and are imho doing a good job at it. Taking resources away from their rightful owners? Seriously? I wouldn’t want to walk down that path. Best regards, Karl Kaiser Von: D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus <walde@wcs-online.de<mailto:walde@wcs-online.de>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Mai 2025 23:43 An: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von walde@wcs-online.de<mailto:walde@wcs-online.de>. Erfahren Sie, warum dies wichtig ist<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> We have several problems. 1. There are enough admins who understand IPv4 with 255 but unfortunately not IPv6. 2. I myself have been on the waiting list for a meager /24 subnet for almost 600 days. 3. The world can do IPv6 but is too good to use it. See Twitter/x.com. 4. Those who make a lot of money from it, like Cogent, rent out IPv4 at prices that I simply find crap. They line their pockets, while others pay the same amount and have to wait 600 days for a /24. That can't be right. The problem shows that we have to work towards goals for equality. - The goal should be to return unused IPv4, either voluntarily or by force. - Putting IPv4 networks on a list that requires a usage fee - Deactivating IPv4 now and definitively at a specific time It can't be that I pay €2,000 for nothing (yes, I have IPv6) while others pocket millions of euros/dollars by renting IPv4. While I wait 600 days for a 24-hour service. This has to end. We need approaches and solutions. Regards, Dirk Walde, CEO of Walde IT-Systeme PS: Your opinions, please. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist Mangenberger Str. 76 - D-42655 Solingen - Germany +49(0)212-3833235 - info@walde-it.de<mailto:info@walde-it.de> - http://www.walde-it.de<http://www.walde-it.de/> NETWORK AS203226 + AS199679 + AS199681 / ABUSE: abuse@waldeit.de<mailto:abuse@waldeit.de> ** RIPE NCC Full Member - RIPE LIR Service ** DREG ID: 11/075 (§6 TKG) - TAX ID: DE159795091 Kees Meijs | Nefos via members-discuss schrieb: Hi, I guess the persuading is more about systems integrators and local systems c.q. network administrators. If they don't push or ask about IPv6, end-users will never even be able to use IPv6 even if they wanted to. (Gosh, I miss those SixXS days...) Back in the days but very recently as well, I've met administrators who have "look for IPv6 support and turn it off" almost on the top of their list when onboarding new customers or when installing new (virtual) equipment. It seems if they're actually afraid of the protocol because it looks different. When turning it off, they do not need to think about it any more, there is nothing that could break (because they do not comprehend it) and so on. "Ignorance is bliss." So in short: we (the professional networking community) should actively educate, and then (in that order) maybe even dictate IPv6. Lastly, just a thought to think about: would it be a coincidence that "them" are mostly (if not always) Windows administrators? Cheers, Kees On 27-05-2025 16:55, NEUCKENS Marc via members-discuss wrote: Strong technical teams that could convince their management to do the effort and/or competitors that started first, are the key differentiators why they support or not ipv6. (personal opinion) ________________________________ ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ ________________________________ Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, destroy all copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any purpose. Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhaenge ist vertraulich und koennte bevorrechtigtem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, informieren Sie bitte den Absender unverzueglich, loeschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System und veroeffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich zu welchem Zweck. Think before you print! T-Mobile Austria GmbH Geschaeftsfuehrung: Werner Kraus, Volker Libovsky, Nathalie Rau, Branko Stanchev; Aufsichtsrat: Kyra Orth (Vorsitzende) Firmenbuch: Handelsgericht Wien, Sitz Wien, FN 171112k, UID ATU 45011703, DVR 0898295 Konto: UniCredit Bank Austria AG IBAN: AT93 1200 0528 4407 2301, BIC: BKAUATWW
If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4. RIPE doesn't have the power to do that for the whole Internet, but it can send a clear message by removing IPv4 access to all RIPE services (API, control panel etc.). There's no reason not to do this. All RIPE members have IPv6, and those that haven't got themselves sorted can be given 12 months to do so. Taking a (mostly symbolic) action like this sends a clear signal and will likely be picked up by tech media outlets. It's something we *can* do as an organisation. Any objections? Cheers, Brett -- Brett Sheffield (he/him) Gladserv Ltd
I agree! Luca Marini -----Original Message----- From: Brett Sheffield <ripe@gladserv.com> Sent: mercoledì 28 maggio 2025 10:21 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4. RIPE doesn't have the power to do that for the whole Internet, but it can send a clear message by removing IPv4 access to all RIPE services (API, control panel etc.). There's no reason not to do this. All RIPE members have IPv6, and those that haven't got themselves sorted can be given 12 months to do so. Taking a (mostly symbolic) action like this sends a clear signal and will likely be picked up by tech media outlets. It's something we *can* do as an organisation. Any objections? Cheers, Brett -- Brett Sheffield (he/him) Gladserv Ltd ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Brett Sheffield wrote:
If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4.
The idea of deprecating and removing IPv4 support in order to "encourage" IPv6 adoption is both unrealistic and counterproductive. While IPv6 is a technically superior protocol and its widespread adoption is desirable, the fact remains that IPv4 continues to underpin a vast portion of the global Internet infrastructure. Forcing its removal would not accelerate IPv6 adoption - it would introduce massive disruption and incompatibility. Dual-stack deployments and transition technologies (such as NAT64, DNS64, and 464XLAT) are well-established and allow for a practical coexistence of both protocols. The Internet is a heterogeneous space, and many networks, especially in developing regions or small-scale operations, still rely heavily on IPv4. Moreover, critical systems, embedded devices, legacy applications, and even large-scale services continue to depend on IPv4-only implementations. Mandating IPv6-only operation would sever access to these resources and services. Adoption of IPv6 should be driven by technical and economic incentives, not by the threat of forced obsolescence. Removing support for IPv4 would not solve the adoption problem - it would merely punish those who, for valid reasons, cannot yet migrate. As a coordinating body, RIPE should focus on fostering compatibility, providing incentives, and supporting gradual transition rather than advocating for the removal of functional infrastructure. Deprecating IPv4 is not a path to progress - it is a recipe for fragmentation and exclusion. -- nemox.net Rudolf E. Steiner r.steiner@nemox.net http://nemox.net/pdat/res/
Hi Brett, all, While I appreciate the intention to promote IPv6, I have to strongly object to the proposal of removing IPv4 access to RIPE services. Deprecating IPv4 — even symbolically — is not a “signal”, it’s a disruption. Key points: IPv4 is not deprecated — it’s the backbone of global traffic. Most production systems, even in dual-stack environments, rely on IPv4. The market for IPv4 addresses — leasing, transfers, brokers — exists precisely because IPv4 is still essential. Deprecating access to critical RIPE services would harm legitimate businesses and LIR operations. RIPE is a registry, not a campaign group. Its duty is to serve all members reliably — not to make symbolic political gestures. Disabling access over IPv4 to APIs or the LIR Portal would disrupt automation for many and create unnecessary operational risk. “All members have IPv6” is incorrect. Yes, many have allocations — but allocations don’t mean real-world deployment. You can’t expect thousands of legacy systems, embedded appliances, and enterprise stacks to suddenly switch without cost, risk, or a clear need. Tech media coverage is irrelevant to network stability. Making operational decisions to get media headlines is a dangerous path. RIPE’s reputation is built on trust, neutrality, and technical soundness — not PR stunts. Conclusion: If you believe in IPv6 adoption, focus on incentives, not punishments. Provide tools, training, and smoother integration — but don’t force outages in the name of symbolism. Sent from my iPhone
On 28 May 2025, at 18:07, Rudolf E. Steiner via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Brett Sheffield wrote:
If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4.
The idea of deprecating and removing IPv4 support in order to "encourage" IPv6 adoption is both unrealistic and counterproductive.
While IPv6 is a technically superior protocol and its widespread adoption is desirable, the fact remains that IPv4 continues to underpin a vast portion of the global Internet infrastructure. Forcing its removal would not accelerate IPv6 adoption - it would introduce massive disruption and incompatibility.
Dual-stack deployments and transition technologies (such as NAT64, DNS64, and 464XLAT) are well-established and allow for a practical coexistence of both protocols. The Internet is a heterogeneous space, and many networks, especially in developing regions or small-scale operations, still rely heavily on IPv4. Moreover, critical systems, embedded devices, legacy applications, and even large-scale services continue to depend on IPv4-only implementations. Mandating IPv6-only operation would sever access to these resources and services.
Adoption of IPv6 should be driven by technical and economic incentives, not by the threat of forced obsolescence. Removing support for IPv4 would not solve the adoption problem - it would merely punish those who, for valid reasons, cannot yet migrate. As a coordinating body, RIPE should focus on fostering compatibility, providing incentives, and supporting gradual transition rather than advocating for the removal of functional infrastructure. Deprecating IPv4 is not a path to progress - it is a recipe for fragmentation and exclusion.
-- nemox.net Rudolf E. Steiner r.steiner@nemox.net http://nemox.net/pdat/res/ <r_steiner.vcf> ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Dear colleagues Although Alexey seems to be against campaigning, I would still like to express my support for his views. We are for positive and constructive action and against any form of punitive action. Deprecating IPv4 would severely harm the work of our cooperative. Friendly regards Philip Donner Kuhmon kyläverkko-osuuskunta Kokkovaarantie 1063 88760 Iivantiira Finland Telephone: +358-3-4489022 (office), +358-40-0404555 (mobile) E-mail: <mailto:pdonner@znak.fi> pdonner@znak.fi, <mailto:toimisto@nettinoste.fi> toimisto@nettinoste.fi From: Alexey Berezhnev <alex@mac3.ru> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 6:26 PM To: Rudolf E. Steiner <r.steiner@nemox.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month Hi Brett, all, While I appreciate the intention to promote IPv6, I have to strongly object to the proposal of removing IPv4 access to RIPE services. Deprecating IPv4 — even symbolically — is not a “signal”, it’s a disruption. Key points: 1. IPv4 is not deprecated — it’s the backbone of global traffic. Most production systems, even in dual-stack environments, rely on IPv4. The market for IPv4 addresses — leasing, transfers, brokers — exists precisely because IPv4 is still essential. Deprecating access to critical RIPE services would harm legitimate businesses and LIR operations. 2. RIPE is a registry, not a campaign group. Its duty is to serve all members reliably — not to make symbolic political gestures. Disabling access over IPv4 to APIs or the LIR Portal would disrupt automation for many and create unnecessary operational risk. 3. “All members have IPv6” is incorrect. Yes, many have allocations — but allocations don’t mean real-world deployment. You can’t expect thousands of legacy systems, embedded appliances, and enterprise stacks to suddenly switch without cost, risk, or a clear need. 4. Tech media coverage is irrelevant to network stability. Making operational decisions to get media headlines is a dangerous path. RIPE’s reputation is built on trust, neutrality, and technical soundness — not PR stunts. Conclusion: If you believe in IPv6 adoption, focus on incentives, not punishments. Provide tools, training, and smoother integration — but don’t force outages in the name of symbolism. Sent from my iPhone On 28 May 2025, at 18:07, Rudolf E. Steiner via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > wrote: Brett Sheffield wrote: If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4. The idea of deprecating and removing IPv4 support in order to "encourage" IPv6 adoption is both unrealistic and counterproductive. While IPv6 is a technically superior protocol and its widespread adoption is desirable, the fact remains that IPv4 continues to underpin a vast portion of the global Internet infrastructure. Forcing its removal would not accelerate IPv6 adoption - it would introduce massive disruption and incompatibility. Dual-stack deployments and transition technologies (such as NAT64, DNS64, and 464XLAT) are well-established and allow for a practical coexistence of both protocols. The Internet is a heterogeneous space, and many networks, especially in developing regions or small-scale operations, still rely heavily on IPv4. Moreover, critical systems, embedded devices, legacy applications, and even large-scale services continue to depend on IPv4-only implementations. Mandating IPv6-only operation would sever access to these resources and services. Adoption of IPv6 should be driven by technical and economic incentives, not by the threat of forced obsolescence. Removing support for IPv4 would not solve the adoption problem - it would merely punish those who, for valid reasons, cannot yet migrate. As a coordinating body, RIPE should focus on fostering compatibility, providing incentives, and supporting gradual transition rather than advocating for the removal of functional infrastructure. Deprecating IPv4 is not a path to progress - it is a recipe for fragmentation and exclusion. -- nemox.net Rudolf E. Steiner r.steiner@nemox.net <mailto:r.steiner@nemox.net> http://nemox.net/pdat/res/ <r_steiner.vcf> ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
On 2025-05-28 16:24, Rudolf E. Steiner via members-discuss wrote:
Deprecating IPv4 is not a path to progress - it is a recipe for fragmentation and exclusion.
The fragmentation and exclusion is here already. A cartel of companies with IPv4 resources is excluding any new players from entering the market, as they cannot obtain the resources required to operate an ASN. Setting a sunset date is a reasonable and proportionate step forward. Countries like the Czech Republic have already set a date. Is RIPE going to wait until outside pressures force us, or are we going to take steps to move the Internet forward for its members and the world. Sitting on our hands isn't a strategy. Cheers, Brett -- Brett Sheffield (he/him) Gladserv Ltd
Brett Sheffield schrieb:
On 2025-05-28 16:24, Rudolf E. Steiner via members-discuss wrote:
Deprecating IPv4 is not a path to progress - it is a recipe for fragmentation and exclusion.
The fragmentation and exclusion is here already. A cartel of companies with IPv4 resources is excluding any new players from entering the market, as they cannot obtain the resources required to operate an ASN.
Setting a sunset date is a reasonable and proportionate step forward. Countries like the Czech Republic have already set a date. Is RIPE going to wait until outside pressures force us, or are we going to take steps to move the Internet forward for its members and the world.
Sitting on our hands isn't a strategy.
Cheers,
Brett
Looking away or ignoring it achieves nothing except wasting time. I have no idea how best to direct the focus and future of IPv6 or advance it. The only problem is that every second person still uses IPv4 because it's working or they don't want to deal with the IPv6 issue. That's a problem. And yes, RIP could switch completely to IPv6, but in my opinion that makes no sense in the current situation and only costs the members' money. The costs are already high enough. And the IPv4 issue on a global level. Yes, I have offers here from global players. Renting a /18 for me without any problems only costs $5800 net per month. Yes, it's great that they have so many networks and I can rent everything. The future is already here, IPv6, but if every second person wants IPv4 (supposedly because there's no other option), we'll not only have the same problem today, but will still have it in 10, 20, 30 years. Or we should develop IPv8 directly, which is simple in terms of structure, because the admins like to have the IP of their systems easily in their heads. Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Walde IT-Systemhaus - CEO Dirk Walde - IT-Specialist
Hi, On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 04:24:05PM +0200, Rudolf E. Steiner via members-discuss wrote:
Dual-stack deployments and transition technologies (such as NAT64, DNS64, and 464XLAT) are well-established and allow for a practical coexistence of both protocols.
Dual-stack deployments are the worst of all worlds. You have to deal with IPv4, and add the complexity of another protocol on top, without being able to benefit from IPv6. Facebook has demonstrated 10+ years ago that IPv6 single stack is the way forward, with dual-stack being restricted to the (few) Internet- facing endpoints that need to talk to those late in adoption. As has T-Mobile USA for the eyeball space. [..]
Adoption of IPv6 should be driven by technical and economic incentives, not by the threat of forced obsolescence. Removing support for IPv4 would not solve the adoption problem - it would merely punish those who, for valid reasons, cannot yet migrate.
In 2025, all "valid reasons" have long been used up - there's only excuses left. Anything you claim "it cannot be done because..." was a short-sighted decision when purchasing a piece of software or hardware - there is nothing left out there (except in museums) that predates IPv6. That said, I do not think "removing IPv4 from the RIPE services" would have any beneficial impact at large - it would annoy a few LIRs to make sure that their NOC networks can reach an IPv6-only service, but will not have an impact on their Internet offerings. Now, regulatory demands, or search engine optimization incentives ["v6 gets a better page rank!"] might work... but with AI assisted search, page rank is becoming meaningless, so maybe not. We could just give up (but then stop complaining that there is not enough IPv4, this is well known). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Am 28.05.2025 um 17:53 schrieb support--- via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>:
RIPE doesn't have the power to do that for the whole Internet, but it can send a clear message by removing IPv4 access to all RIPE services (API, control panel etc.).
That would probably the near end of RIPE, because ppl will seek / find alternatives to run their resources without RIPE. niels.
Brett We object. You have no idea what kind of setup we, or any other member is working with. Just because you might think that it’s “easy” to just disable IPv4 does not mean that it actually is for a lot of people. You also have no idea why or how people access RIPE’s systems. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:+353599183072> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: Brett Sheffield <ripe@gladserv.com> Date: Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 09:26 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4. RIPE doesn't have the power to do that for the whole Internet, but it can send a clear message by removing IPv4 access to all RIPE services (API, control panel etc.). There's no reason not to do this. All RIPE members have IPv6, and those that haven't got themselves sorted can be given 12 months to do so. Taking a (mostly symbolic) action like this sends a clear signal and will likely be picked up by tech media outlets. It's something we *can* do as an organisation. Any objections? Cheers, Brett -- Brett Sheffield (he/him) Gladserv Ltd ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Symbolic gestures can backfire if they introduce barriers to critical services. RIPE NCC has long maintained a position of technical neutrality, serving all members equally regardless of their internal networking choices. Deprecating IPv4 access would move RIPE NCC into a policy-driven or ideological position, rather than maintaining its role as a neutral and reliable coordination body. Regards, Arash On Wed, 28 May 2025 at 18:21, Brett Sheffield <ripe@gladserv.com> wrote:
If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4.
RIPE doesn't have the power to do that for the whole Internet, but it can send a clear message by removing IPv4 access to all RIPE services (API, control panel etc.).
There's no reason not to do this. All RIPE members have IPv6, and those that haven't got themselves sorted can be given 12 months to do so.
Taking a (mostly symbolic) action like this sends a clear signal and will likely be picked up by tech media outlets. It's something we *can* do as an organisation.
Any objections?
Cheers,
Brett -- Brett Sheffield (he/him) Gladserv Ltd ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi all! I support Brett's suggestions! Very symbolic - access to sites and APIs only on IPv6 sockets! I would like to draw the community's attention to the goals of revising the current funding scheme. The main goal is to efficiently utilize IPv4 address space when it is scarce. If there are really no “free” addresses, there is no point in changing anything. We will invent 15 categories, introduce thresholds, but it will be of no use. The addresses have never existed and will never appear. With frantic demand and such prices for rent and purchase of IPv4, we can hardly economically force organizations that do not use addresses to give them up and return them to the pool for distribution. What is even scarier is that these owners may not make any money on their /16 unused blocks. If the entire membership fee is determined by the number of resources, it would be more like RIPE NCC's commercial activities. But on the other hand, we could fund part of the RIPE NCC budget with a fee that would be based on the number of /24 IP networks managed by a single RIPE member. It would be linear and simple. According to the provided report we are 21248 and we manage 3081702 subnets /24 IPv4. If 10% of the RIPE NCC budget is formed from these contributions calculated on IPv4 networks, it turns out: 21248*1500*0.1/3081702 - 1 EURO per network /24 per year. If you have an insane number of networks that you don't use, it will be very uncomfortable.... But as I understand it that is our main goal, to get the network holders who don't use them to return IPv4 in pool. They will either saturate the market and the value of the networks will fall or simply return them to the pool of unused ones. It would be very interesting to hear the opinion of these first members of RIPE. Best regards, Mikhail Mayorov, LIR with 146 /24 IPv4 total allocated On 28.05.2025 11:21, Brett Sheffield wrote:
If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4.
RIPE doesn't have the power to do that for the whole Internet, but it can send a clear message by removing IPv4 access to all RIPE services (API, control panel etc.).
There's no reason not to do this. All RIPE members have IPv6, and those that haven't got themselves sorted can be given 12 months to do so.
Taking a (mostly symbolic) action like this sends a clear signal and will likely be picked up by tech media outlets. It's something we *can* do as an organisation.
Any objections?
Cheers,
Brett
Let's try to keep the symbolism and virtue signaling away from technical matters. The portal (etc.) needs to work for people who deal with matters related to addressing, RPKI, whatever. Disabling the primary method (I assume, no data) of access won't help at all. It'll be a nuisance. Most of us don't like nuisances. I draw many similarities with the idea of paying for unused assignments and the goals that state monopolies tend to have in some countries. Like selling alcohol but at the same time being responsible for cutting down on consumption. Or overseeing gambling and lotteries but at the same time being responsible for gambling addicts. You get the idea. For IPv4 addresses the train left the station a long time ago. The addresses got assigned with the rules and policies that were in force at the time. That's it. I don't think RIPE's goals are to be punitive or at least I didn't read about it in the bylaws. Is it unfair that someone got addresses years ago for free or nearly free? Arguably... no since anyone at the time could get them given proper justification. That was then and complaining about it 10-30 years later won't help anyone. I'll skip discussing pros and cons of various charging models for now. Models exist to collect (and justify, really) the fees one pays for services. Arguably, the fairest is everyone pays a flat fee as one cannot choose "a la carte" but instead need to pay a share of what I'd call a fixed common service pool. Is it fair that smaller orgs pay the same as the largest pan-Europeans? It both is and isn't simultaneously. It is because everyone pays the same. It isn't if larger orgs utilize services or cause more effort. Finally, if your business model isn't able to sustain the purchase or lease of IPv4 addresses it might need some fine-tuning. Perhaps that super low-end web hosting or shell business and the race towards zero is not the paradise and road to IPO you think it is. Perhaps your competition thinks the same but is willing to sell below cost or has higher margin products where they (hope to?) recoup the extra costs. Perhaps the blue ocean really is elsewhere. Kaj Sent from my iPad ________________________________ From: Mikhail Mayorov <mm@webrocket.am> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 8:11 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month [You don't often get email from mm@webrocket.am. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Hi all! I support Brett's suggestions! Very symbolic - access to sites and APIs only on IPv6 sockets! I would like to draw the community's attention to the goals of revising the current funding scheme. The main goal is to efficiently utilize IPv4 address space when it is scarce. If there are really no “free” addresses, there is no point in changing anything. We will invent 15 categories, introduce thresholds, but it will be of no use. The addresses have never existed and will never appear. With frantic demand and such prices for rent and purchase of IPv4, we can hardly economically force organizations that do not use addresses to give them up and return them to the pool for distribution. What is even scarier is that these owners may not make any money on their /16 unused blocks. If the entire membership fee is determined by the number of resources, it would be more like RIPE NCC's commercial activities. But on the other hand, we could fund part of the RIPE NCC budget with a fee that would be based on the number of /24 IP networks managed by a single RIPE member. It would be linear and simple. According to the provided report we are 21248 and we manage 3081702 subnets /24 IPv4. If 10% of the RIPE NCC budget is formed from these contributions calculated on IPv4 networks, it turns out: 21248*1500*0.1/3081702 - 1 EURO per network /24 per year. If you have an insane number of networks that you don't use, it will be very uncomfortable.... But as I understand it that is our main goal, to get the network holders who don't use them to return IPv4 in pool. They will either saturate the market and the value of the networks will fall or simply return them to the pool of unused ones. It would be very interesting to hear the opinion of these first members of RIPE. Best regards, Mikhail Mayorov, LIR with 146 /24 IPv4 total allocated On 28.05.2025 11:21, Brett Sheffield wrote:
If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4.
RIPE doesn't have the power to do that for the whole Internet, but it can send a clear message by removing IPv4 access to all RIPE services (API, control panel etc.).
There's no reason not to do this. All RIPE members have IPv6, and those that haven't got themselves sorted can be given 12 months to do so.
Taking a (mostly symbolic) action like this sends a clear signal and will likely be picked up by tech media outlets. It's something we *can* do as an organisation.
Any objections?
Cheers,
Brett
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C775b739264e84bb4455208dd9ed3d574%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638841354833800043%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8MizzWG56wvT0A7BN08kt1sRAPpw3cc1dNksJEXZaJg%3D&reserved=0<https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C775b739264e84bb4455208dd9ed3d574%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638841354833827764%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=86XUkjRy6Ly0SOYCuVjCMEdixg6HfEn3ohyI8xfrR%2BU%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
No, the problem is fairness. Everyone in the Ripe cosmos should be able to live. But companies that have more IPv4 than they need for their daily needs should simply return it. I know companies that have returned unused /19. But the global players and network sellers should be reined in. Ripe is a community. If we don't believe in IPv6, we have a problem. If we don't do anything to advance IPv6, that's sad... But punishing new businesses so that they pay the full fees and with luck get an IPv4 /24 is crap, sorry, but crap. Just because we weren't on the market 20 years ago, or we weren't in business, no, that's not acceptable. Building up a business isn't possible without IPv4 either, because nobody is making sure it's abolished. There needs to be justice. But everyone has their own position: anyone who has a ton of IPv4 blocks sitting around for the next 10 or 20 years won't be in favor of creating justice or a future for everyone. And I'm done with that. I think that the small companies without reasonable access to IPv4 min /22 should definitely not pay the full fee, and yes, there should be fees for /24 allocations, perhaps even for IPv6, $50 or €50 for a /29. Let's be honest for a moment. How many networks do companies like Cogent, HE-Net, Telekom, etc. have, but they pay the same per year as a small company that hasn't gotten anything from IPv4. Like me. Sorry, grade 6. Equality should always exist. And when old global players and universities in the world sit on IP blocks, that's neither nice nor collegial. Because these are good general terms and not the property of the members. There's simply a problem between old and new members, and also between fairness and profit. So I wish everyone a nice weekend, D. Walde
I'm not trying to get into ethics or teach anyone how to run their business. And definitely not here to decide what's fair or not. RIPE NCC has been around for 30+ years, and the membership fee has always been the same. Seemed like everyone was fine with that. But after IPv4 ran out, there was a huge wave of "new" members — and most of them weren't really new. It was just a line for the last /24, because paying €3,500 for a LIR account was cheaper than buying on the market. A wrong decision was made. In today’s reality, I don’t see any point in that queue anymore. We should just stop handing out IPv4 addresses altogether. Any addresses that end up in the pool should simply be sold on the open market — plain and simple commercial activity. And the revenue from that should go directly into RIPE NCC’s budget. That would reduce the financial burden on existing members. Once the IPv4 market dries up, that revenue will be gone — and we'll all be back to paying full membership fees. Personally, I’d rather /buy/ a subnet directly from RIPE NCC, knowing that the money would go toward supporting the community. But for some reason, RIPE NCC doesn’t offer that as a way to fund its budget. Instead, it keeps “welcoming” new members for €2,000 and pretends that this isn’t IPv4 trading... And then we hear talk about increased operational load due to the crazy market activity. *Have a great weekend, everyone!* On 29.05.2025 21:31, Kaj Niemi wrote:
Let's try to keep the symbolism and virtue signaling away from technical matters. The portal (etc.) needs to work for people who deal with matters related to addressing, RPKI, whatever. Disabling the primary method (I assume, no data) of access won't help at all. It'll be a nuisance. Most of us don't like nuisances.
I draw many similarities with the idea of paying for unused /assignments/ and the goals that state monopolies tend to have in some countries. Like selling alcohol but at the same time being responsible for cutting down on consumption. Or overseeing gambling and lotteries but at the same time being responsible for gambling addicts. You get the idea. For IPv4 addresses the train left the station a long time ago. The addresses got assigned with the rules and policies that were in force at the time. That's it. I don't think RIPE's goals are to be punitive or at least I didn't read about it in the bylaws. Is it unfair that someone got addresses years ago for free or nearly free? Arguably... no since anyone at the time could get them given proper justification. That was then and complaining about it 10-30 years later won't help anyone.
I'll skip discussing pros and cons of various charging models for now. Models exist to collect (and justify, really) the fees one pays for services. Arguably, the fairest is everyone pays a flat fee as one cannot choose "a la carte" but instead need to pay a share of what I'd call a fixed common service pool. Is it fair that smaller orgs pay the same as the largest pan-Europeans? It both is and isn't simultaneously. It is because everyone pays the same. It isn't if larger orgs utilize services or cause more effort.
Finally, if your business model isn't able to sustain the purchase or lease of IPv4 addresses it might need some fine-tuning. Perhaps that super low-end web hosting or shell business and the race towards zero is not the paradise and road to IPO you think it is. Perhaps your competition thinks the same but is willing to sell below cost or has higher margin products where they (hope to?) recoup the extra costs. Perhaps the blue ocean really is elsewhere.
Kaj
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Mikhail Mayorov <mm@webrocket.am> *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2025 8:11 PM *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* [members-discuss] Re: Reminder that Charging Scheme Task Force comments are open until the end of the month [You don't often get email from mm@webrocket.am. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Hi all!
I support Brett's suggestions! Very symbolic - access to sites and APIs only on IPv6 sockets!
I would like to draw the community's attention to the goals of revising the current funding scheme. The main goal is to efficiently utilize IPv4 address space when it is scarce. If there are really no “free” addresses, there is no point in changing anything. We will invent 15 categories, introduce thresholds, but it will be of no use. The addresses have never existed and will never appear.
With frantic demand and such prices for rent and purchase of IPv4, we can hardly economically force organizations that do not use addresses to give them up and return them to the pool for distribution. What is even scarier is that these owners may not make any money on their /16 unused blocks. If the entire membership fee is determined by the number of resources, it would be more like RIPE NCC's commercial activities. But on the other hand, we could fund part of the RIPE NCC budget with a fee that would be based on the number of /24 IP networks managed by a single RIPE member. It would be linear and simple.
According to the provided report we are 21248 and we manage 3081702 subnets /24 IPv4. If 10% of the RIPE NCC budget is formed from these contributions calculated on IPv4 networks, it turns out: 21248*1500*0.1/3081702 - 1 EURO per network /24 per year. If you have an insane number of networks that you don't use, it will be very uncomfortable.... But as I understand it that is our main goal, to get the network holders who don't use them to return IPv4 in pool. They will either saturate the market and the value of the networks will fall or simply return them to the pool of unused ones. It would be very interesting to hear the opinion of these first members of RIPE.
Best regards, Mikhail Mayorov, LIR with 146 /24 IPv4 total allocated
If RIPE is serious about encouraging IPv6 adoption (and I think we are), we need to deprecate and remove support for IPv4.
RIPE doesn't have the power to do that for the whole Internet, but it can send a clear message by removing IPv4 access to all RIPE services (API, control panel etc.).
There's no reason not to do this. All RIPE members have IPv6, and
On 28.05.2025 11:21, Brett Sheffield wrote: those that
haven't got themselves sorted can be given 12 months to do so.
Taking a (mostly symbolic) action like this sends a clear signal and will likely be picked up by tech media outlets. It's something we *can* do as an organisation.
Any objections?
Cheers,
Brett
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ripe.net%2Fmailman3%2Flists%2Fmembers-discuss.ripe.net%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C775b739264e84bb4455208dd9ed3d574%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638841354833800043%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8MizzWG56wvT0A7BN08kt1sRAPpw3cc1dNksJEXZaJg%3D&reserved=0 <https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fmembership%2Fmail%2Fmailman-3-migration%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C775b739264e84bb4455208dd9ed3d574%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638841354833827764%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=86XUkjRy6Ly0SOYCuVjCMEdixg6HfEn3ohyI8xfrR%2BU%3D&reserved=0 <https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/>
Oh, and I forgot. Instead of introducing fees for ASNs, a fee for IPSs would definitely have been better last year. Yes, it was voted on, but unfortunately, my vote didn't prevent it. It's nonsense to introduce an AS fee because IPSs are a problem, and old and new members are equal in terms of comparison. So now... I wish everyone a nice weekend. D. Walde ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Am Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2025, 02:46:47 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Kaiser, Karl:
RIPE is already actively hunting down unused resources and are imho doing a good job at it. no, just by the fact that there is huge unsused IPv4 address space out. There are "many" old companies which held some kind of /16 while in reality only using a hand full of IPv4 addresses from it.
If RIPE would do a "good job" with it - we would not have that discussion. cheers, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi, On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 09:50:09AM +0200, Niels Dettenbach wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2025, 02:46:47 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Kaiser, Karl:
RIPE is already actively hunting down unused resources and are imho doing a good job at it. no, just by the fact that there is huge unsused IPv4 address space out. There are "many" old companies which held some kind of /16 while in reality only using a hand full of IPv4 addresses from it.
If that statement were true, I bet the bookkeepers in said companies would be highly interested in learning how to earn an extra million or two, by getting their techs to "renumber a handfull of IPv4 addresses"... no? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 11:43:14PM +0200, D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus wrote:
This has to end.
There is a marked value of IPv4 because people are willing to pay for it. Everyone on this list has influence - ensure your services are IPv6 enabled, ensure your vendors know that you wont be buying any component or service that has no IPv6 support, or where IPv6 support costs extra. Make sure your customers have IPv6 on your offerings, automatic, without waiting for "customers asking for it". This will take some effort, and will be annoying at times (because you have this wonderful service offering that would be perfect - except not having v6, so you need to decide what you find more important) - but over time, will make a difference, and v4 will become irrelevant. Should we have reached this point 10 years ago? Of course. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Teilnehmer (23)
-
Alexey Berezhnev -
Arash Naderpour -
Brett Sheffield -
D. Walde - Walde IT-Systeme -
D. Walde - Walde IT-Systemhaus
-
David Tatlisu -
Denis Fondras - Liopen -
Gert Doering -
Kaiser, Karl -
Kaj Niemi -
Kees Meijs | Nefos -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Mihail Fedorov -
Mikhail Mayorov -
NEUCKENS Marc -
Niels Dettenbach -
Paul Webb -
Peter Hessler -
Philip Donner -
Rudolf E. Steiner -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
support＠c1vhosting.it