Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board is very happy to note the detailed level of discussion the membership has engaged in regarding the proposed RIPE NCC Charging Scheme model. We are very grateful for the feedback we have received, both positive and negative. We have followed the discussions closely and will continue to do so until we have our Executive Board meeting on 2 August to formulate the Draft Charging Scheme 2013, which will be presented for members to vote on at the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 26 September 2012. The proposed model is available at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/charging-scheme-model... Some of the issues that have arisen during the discussion on the list are: - Concerns over the self-determination aspect of the model, such as the belief that large LIRs will declare as Small LIRs - Proposals to charge members based on resource usage - Comments that the proposed model favours large LIRs - Proposals to divide costs equally among all members - The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources - Changing RIPE NCC status from non-taxable to taxable to have more flexibility in the fee schedule Many of the issues that have risen in the discussions are also included in the Report of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Task Force, and we would advise you to read this document. It is available as a PDF at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/april-2012/supporting-documents/rep... Regarding the issue of changing the RIPE NCC model so that it becomes subject to corporate income taxation, it is unclear how exactly this would impact RIPE NCC finances. However, it could be expensive because the RIPE NCC reserves could come under scrutiny. The Executive Board will continue to monitor the discussions on the mailing list, and we thank you for the valuable input you have given us so far. Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman of the RIPE NCC Executive Board
Hello Nigel, I thank you for your work and the acknowledgement of the ongoing discussion. There is one point I would like to stress, you write:
- The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources
This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR.
- Changing RIPE NCC status from non-taxable to taxable to have more flexibility in the fee schedule
Also this is not generally agreed, as I said there is no direct connection between tax status and "per usage charge" as long as the "per usage charge" is still done with a model of "class of memebership" and not as a "pay per IP". I kindly ask you to record that: - a proposal exists to maintain a "category based" charging scheme, with a larger number of categories, in which the category is determined on the "share of exhaustible resources allocated to the LIR", and at least a significant part of the membership fee is proportional to that share. Obviously the model would scale without problems to IPv6, if I have a /20 of IPv4 I am using "1/2^20" of the exhaustible resource, If I have a /48 of IPv6 I am using "1/2^48" of that exhaustible resource; for ASn and other exhaustible resources the principle could be similar, and a resonable part of the category assignment could be done on non-exhaustible resources (number of records in teh database, number of tickets, etc). I would personally be in favor of even increasing RIPE budget to use more resources to promote the transition to IPv6 (training, free services, etc). Thank you and best regards, A.
Hi, On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 06:38:10PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote:
I thank you for your work and the acknowledgement of the ongoing discussion.
There is one point I would like to stress, you write:
- The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources
This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR.
The "large part of the members" being... 3 voices out of several thousand? Hear, hear. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 24 Jul 2012, at 18:04, Gert Doering wrote:
- The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources
This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR.
The "large part of the members" being... 3 voices out of several thousand?
A minority of LIR are actively involved in RIPE's governance currently. Members tend to only awake when you tell them they will have to pay more or they can not get what they used to get for free.. To make my point : this is my first post, .. Hi everyone :) I am assuming that IPv6 will continue to take longer than we all want to become the de-facto address family of the internet. For the moment, this is still were we are. If the reality of the internet is a world where IPv4s become a financial asset, and can be used for financial gain between LIR/organisation, it would be fair (as a membership organisation is about fairness) to have a price which reflect the value of the asset owed by every members. I know LIR do not own their IP space but if they are allowed to trade/rent it, I see little difference. Not doing so would give incumbent a commercial advantage and provide them no incentive to return the IPv4 they own (which could be used by newcomers/startups) and/or migrate to IPv6. I would welcome policies which would increase the price of owning IPv4 year over year. As a side comment, I have the felling that in a per such world , I would pay more to RIPE than I pay now... so I am not asking for it to try to save some money. Thinking aloud, should RIPE propose several options every year instead of one. This would surely reduce the debate as everyone would have a chance to vote for their preferred pricing model. ( It may be a can of worm, It may not be possible - I am not familiar with RIPE's governance .... ) Thomas Mangin Exa Networks
Thomas said ...
As a side comment, I have the felling that in a per such world , I would pay more to RIPE than I pay now... so I am not asking for it to try to save some money.
A number of the UK RIPE members I speak to, all think we overpay, and that we don't get "value for money" when (essentially) RIPE is simply there to maintain a database of something that RIPE *don't pay for* - and whilst we don't all agree with the ARIN model, I know we'd certainly pay ~1/2 of the amount we do now, and for any business, that's something worth considering ! * should some members pay more than others - probably There will always be some who will use more "ripe time" and therefore have a higher "cost" to the organisation Perhaps the "solution" to that is charge everyone the same, and offer a "rebate" off the next years fees based on the number of applications made (less is better) number of support tickets raised (less is better) and number of non-essential projects supported (less is better) * should fees be based on numbers of ip addresses - absolutely not Number of assignments - yes, makes some sense, more PA, more PI, more ASN = more DB objects = (to a small degree) more cost "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back to them being a "commodity" (altering the tax status) If an organisation justified and uses a /23 and other justified and uses a /21 there is no difference in the cost to RIPE of the 2 different DB entries - in fact bigger blocks make for cheaper routing ;) * should the fees keep going up - not at all Costs should be going down as they're shared over more members, and there is less work to do, as the number of "resources" left is ever shrinking !
Thinking aloud, should RIPE propose several options every year instead of one.
I think we need to revisit the issue regularly, but not annually - every 3 years maybe ... I do have some questions/concerns over the TF finding/decisions, particularly one that needs clarification and could be "counter productive" to us all. We all understand that IPv4 is pretty-much-gone Many of us understand IPv6 should be a solution Some of us have been dual-stacked for ~10 years and are fed up waiting on the rest of you catching up ;) TaskForce Report says ...
PI address space should be charged separately and there should be no double charging
If we're going to "accelerate"the acceptance of IPv6 (which is in all of our interests) then anyone using PI IPv4 _probably_ needs some PI IPv6 If you're going to charge then for both you put an artificial barrier (doubling their cost), and they'll never want the v6 ...
There should be a differentiation in charge depending on assignment size, e.g. a /18 is charged more than a /24.
Why ? What more work is there for RIPE to do ? What more "cost" therefore is there for RIPE to bear ?
There is no need to charge for ASNs.
16bit ASNs are equally in short supply, and the majority of deployed routers don't understand longer ASNs - so if there's to be no charge for ANSs, then charging obviously isn't based on scarcity ...
Regardless of how PI space and ASNs are charged, there should be no distinction between IPv6 PI and IPv4 PI
Again, to reiterate, if you start charging for IPv6 PI *and* IPv4 PI, you will knock back the use of IPv6 another 10 years, in which case we may as well just scrap it entirely. Rob
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:23PM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote:
this is still were we are. If the reality of the internet is a world where IPv4s become a financial asset, and can be used for financial gain between LIR/organisation, it would be fair (as a membership
This should be resisted as much as possible. If IPv4 becomes a tradeable commodity and hence a vauable asset, two things will inevitably happen: - IPv4 holders will resist ipv6 transition as it would devalue their expensive asset. - Large (read as "rich") companies will be incentivised to accumulate more IPv4 "assets" in order to create a "closed shop", the access to which they control. The "ipv4 market" may happen regardless, but per-address charging by the NCC would be perceived as lending credence to the idea of "ipv4-as-an-asset"
policies which would increase the price of owning IPv4 year over year.
Prima facie, this sounds like a good idea but would yet again give an advantage to large resource holders (who can probably easily afford any levy the NCC might throw at them) while excluding startups and small enterprises. (Possible workaround: disproportionally massive fees for large allocations) As a general aside, the Community and the NCC should evaluate all policies and actions primarily on their consequences for ipv6 transition at this point in time. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Large (read as "rich") companies will be incentivised to accumulate more IPv4 "assets" in order to create a "closed shop", the access to which they control.
It doesn't make sense. If cost of IPv4 will grow - this will stimulate ISP to switch to IPv6 faster. -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
Hi Alexey, I don't agree with your rational. Who are the ones with the largest (unused) supply of IP's .. The larger telco's. This will drive the cost for smaller LIR's, who don't have any already .. They don't care enough untill there is nothing left. That is when they will change to v6 or when their customers start complaining that they are on an intranet without ipv6, instead of the Internet. Regards, Erik Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 25 jul. 2012 om 08:50 heeft LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> het volgende geschreven:
- Large (read as "rich") companies will be incentivised to accumulate more IPv4 "assets" in order to create a "closed shop", the access to which they control.
It doesn't make sense. If cost of IPv4 will grow - this will stimulate ISP to switch to IPv6 faster.
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Erik, Thank you for reply! How large companies will get IPs? Would you like to sell them this IPs? I think, no. It will be very difficult for large companies to accomulate many IPs. All waht will be changed - they will pay much more for the same IPs which they have right now. -- Alexey LeaderTelecom Ltd. Hi Alexey, I don't agree with your rational. Who are the ones with the largest (unused) supply of IP's .. The larger telco's. This will drive the cost for smaller LIR's, who don't have any already .. They don't care enough untill there is nothing left. That is when they will change to v6 or when their customers start complaining that they are on an intranet without ipv6, instead of the Internet. Regards, Erik Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 25 jul. 2012 om 08:50 heeft LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> het volgende geschreven:
- Large (read as "rich") companies will be incentivised to accumulate more IPv4 "assets" in order to create a "closed shop", the access to which they control.
It doesn't make sense. If cost of IPv4 will grow - this will stimulate ISP to switch to IPv6 faster.
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. ---- 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: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [2]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [2] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
* LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> [2012-07-25 12:51]:
Dear Erik,
Thank you for reply! How large companies will get IPs?
Would you like to sell them this IPs? I think, no. It will be very difficult for large companies to accomulate many IPs. All waht will be changed - they will pay much more for the same IPs which they have right now.
They will probably buy up smaller companies to get IPv4. The same way they do now to get patents. Regards Sebastian -- noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 - D-90471 Nürnberg Tel +49-911-9352-0 - Fax +49-911-9352-100 http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Hansjochen Klenk - Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
Hi! On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Thomas Mangin < thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk> wrote:
I am assuming that IPv6 will continue to take longer than we all want to become the de-facto address family of the internet. For the moment, this is still were we are. If the reality of the internet is a world where IPv4s become a financial asset, and can be used for financial gain between LIR/organisation, it would be fair (as a membership organisation is about fairness) to have a price which reflect the value of the asset owed by every members. I know LIR do not own their IP space but if they are allowed to trade/rent it, I see little difference. Not doing so would give incumbent a commercial advantage and provide them no incentive to return the IPv4 they own (which could be used by newcomers/startups) and/or migrate to IPv6. I would welcome policies which would increase the price of owning IPv4 year over year.
I can see your point but it going back to "taxation" of IP resources. We can discuss fairness of "taxes" put on whatever resource, which is not really important here. With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really high to stimulate people to return their unused resources or even higher to force people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to return resources that are currently in use. But if this ever happened, some people might think that RIPE NCC has no right to put taxes on their resources. They can continue operating their network without submitting to RIPE NCC authority, without paying their RIPE NCC bills and without coordination and registration services provided by RIPE NCC. This can lead to split of the Internet or to dissolution of RIPE NCC and it could cause considerable operational problems. 2) There is an option to set additional fee relatively low, which is not going to have any effect on distribution of scarce resources and then it does not make sense to use this conservation/returning IPs argument in favor of this policy. Anyway RIPE NCC is a "Network Coordination Centre", so I suggest to pay them for coordination services and not for consumed resources. Tomas -- Tomáš Hlaváček ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61
They can continue operating their network without submitting to RIPE NCC authority, without paying their RIPE NCC bills and without coordination and registration services provided by RIPE NCC. This can lead to split of the Internet or to dissolution of RIPE NCC and it could cause considerable operational problems.
Good point and unfortunately is an argument for signing the RIPE records - I do not like this idea much ... Thomas
With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really high to stimulate people to return their unused resources or even higher to force people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to return resources that are currently in use.
Why and how will use this huge extra income form that fee, if this happens?
Hello! On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su> wrote:
With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really high to stimulate people to return their unused resources or even higher to force people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to return resources that are currently in use.
Why and how will use this huge extra income form that fee, if this happens?
Well I do not know... I wanted to say that you can set fee high enough to really achieve some effects on address distribution but it brings a risk of deep and irreversible changes in the whole industry. Or you can set the fees low, which is not going to cause anything good or bad. Tomas -- Tomáš Hlaváček ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61
25.07.12 14:49, Tomas Hlavacek написав(ла):
Why and how will use this huge extra income form that fee, if this happens?
Well I do not know... I wanted to say that you can set fee high enough to really achieve some effects on address distribution but it brings a risk of deep and irreversible changes in the whole industry. Or you can set the fees low, which is not going to cause anything good or bad.
This is the main question. We should consider it well before RIPE NCC move from non-profit to profit company.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:31AM +0200, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:
With pay-per-IP model we have two options: 1) We can set fee really high to stimulate people to return their unused resources or even higher to force people to deploy CGNs and redesign networks in order to return resources that are currently in use. But if this ever happened,
These fees would have to be higher than the profit they could expect from "selling" them to have that impact. If they were, that would possibly drive the market value up, thus making those resources an even *more valuable* asset so the fee would have to play catch-up all the time. Besides, all of this discussion is *still* about ipv4 and focused on getting LIRs to return IPv4 space so they can be re-allocated thus infinitely prolonging the survival of this obsolete and now largely unavailable technology. I'd much rather see the NCC abandoning all support for IPv4 and starting again with ipv6 only. And yes, I know that isn't really possible... rgds, Sascha Luck
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:23PM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote:
Thinking aloud, should RIPE propose several options every year instead of one. This would surely reduce the debate as everyone would have a chance to vote for their preferred pricing model. ( It may be a can of worm, It may not be possible - I am not familiar with RIPE's governance
The original 2012 proposal wasn't so bad actually, it just had a few ugly warts which is why I and a lot of others rejected it. So as not to be accused of just moaning and no solutions, how is this for a proposal? -Categories as before, possibly based on the Nov 2011 proposal. -sane category boundaries so that end-users and new LIRs will usually fall into the smallest category. -*No* double charging of Independent Resources. Either set a charge per or use them for category calgulation, not both. Personally, I fall on the side of a charge per resource as using PI/ASN for category calculation is impossible to do fairly. -No "aging" of resources for category calculation. I've never understood what makes a prefix allocated in 1999 different from one allocated in 2009 anyway. For IPv6 that would be farcical anyway. -The "setup fee" has to go or be drastically reduced. Nobody can tell me it is EUR 2k worth of work to set up a new customer. If it actually *is*, now is a good time to change that ineffective practice. Drop the free meeting tickets, if that makes a difference. Nobody uses them. Of the 10 tickets that the 5 LIRs that I do work for were entitled to, not one was used. -I'd argue that this should only include (and fund!) registry, training, K-root and rDNS service. Members who want RPKI, USB sticks or any other service can fund those via separate service fees. rgds, Sascha Luck
.... )
Thomas Mangin Exa Networks
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On 26/07/2012 19:34, Sascha Luck wrote:
The original 2012 proposal wasn't so bad actually, it just had a few ugly warts which is why I and a lot of others rejected it.
I like the current charging scheme task force recommendations. Overall, they are pretty sensible, with the exception of the legacy address holders situation which I don't agree with as a unilateral position (but which I would agree with if the legacy holders are ok about it). However re: the board proposal for the 2013 charging scheme, I'm still concerned about: 1. the self selection categorisation, which is pretty non deterministic and which I believe will lead to all members ending up paying the same amount. This will end up being directly against the recommendations of the task force for several reasons (no differentiation in membership fees based on "size", unstable fees, charging based on service portfolio, charging based on internet number resources), and 2. (much the lesser issue because it has limited time scope) the default policy of lumping all the existing small members into medium which, will have the effect of causing a member which starts off as extra small any time between 2002 and 2011 and who registers the smallest amount of address space possible (i.e. a /21) to be bumped up to small in the year after registration and medium in 2013. /21 is not in general a medium sized LIR, no matter what way you look at it. The current minimum allocation is /21, and by policy you currently cannot get less. So even if there is a problem with the existing charging scheme, it is compounded significantly by the proposed new one, even if only for a single year. The only way you can have a /21 and get charged as extra small is if the /21 was registered more than 10 years ago. So, this is a failure of the current scheme. Please don't compound it with the new one. Fix it instead. Although it affects my company's LIR in exactly this fashion, there is a large number of other LIRs in exactly the same position. Because this exact problem affects ~2.5k LIRs, the proposal does not strike me as being a balanced charging policy and in its current form, I will be voting against it. I like the principles put forward in the task force report about differentiation in membership fees and having these fees based on size categories. As a member, I'm not happy that the new budget proposal has built without these principles at their core. I understand that my position does not take ipv6 resource usage into account, and that the default size of /32 will cover most LIR requirements for their entire lifetimes. However, I'd also take the points of view that a) the RIPE NCC is not yet ready to charge based primarily on ipv6 usage and b) charging for ipv4 registration is still actually relevant. Nick
Please see inline. On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Sascha Luck wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:23PM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote:
Thinking aloud, should RIPE propose several options every year instead of one. This would surely reduce the debate as everyone would have a chance to vote for their preferred pricing model. ( It may be a can of worm, It may not be possible - I am not familiar with RIPE's governance
The original 2012 proposal wasn't so bad actually, it just had a few ugly warts which is why I and a lot of others rejected it.
So as not to be accused of just moaning and no solutions, how is this for a proposal?
-Categories as before, possibly based on the Nov 2011 proposal. -sane category boundaries so that end-users and new LIRs will usually fall into the smallest category.
-*No* double charging of Independent Resources. Either set a charge per or use them for category calgulation, not both. Personally, I fall on the side of a charge per resource as using PI/ASN for category calculation is impossible to do fairly.
-No "aging" of resources for category calculation. I've never understood what makes a prefix allocated in 1999 different from one allocated in 2009 anyway. For IPv6 that would be farcical anyway.
this benefits early adopters, no doubt. maybe most of people driving policies are early adopters -- it wouldn't be a surprise for me. but between 1999 and 2009 there is a difference of 10 years' fees. maybe this is a "bonus discount" for having paid previous fees and keep using the space? maybe someone on the list could explain what was the original rationale/argument for this...
-The "setup fee" has to go or be drastically reduced. Nobody can tell me it is EUR 2k worth of work to set up a new customer. If it actually
*member*... ;-)
*is*, now is a good time to change that ineffective practice. Drop the free meeting tickets, if that makes a difference. Nobody uses them. Of the 10 tickets that the 5 LIRs that I do work for were entitled to, not one was used.
i would personally agree with that, but i guess the NCC should have more precise numbers about it.
-I'd argue that this should only include (and fund!) registry, training, K-root and rDNS service. Members who want RPKI, USB sticks or any other service can fund those via separate service fees.
agree. Regards, Carlos
rgds, Sascha Luck
.... )
Thomas Mangin Exa Networks
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-No "aging" of resources for category calculation. I've never understood what makes a prefix allocated in 1999 different from one allocated in 2009 anyway. For IPv6 that would be farcical anyway.
this benefits early adopters, no doubt. maybe most of people driving policies are early adopters -- it wouldn't be a surprise for me. but between 1999 and 2009 there is a difference of 10 years' fees. maybe this is a "bonus discount" for having paid previous fees and keep using the space? maybe someone on the list could explain what was the original rationale/argument for this...
One argument could be that this is essentially charging for work the RIPE NCC has to do. Right after an address block is allocated, there will be more work dealing with out-of-window assignment requests, but when most of the address space has been assigned, that activity dies down. Regards, - Håvard
Hi Andrea,
- The Charging Scheme should not be based on IPv4 resources
This point is absolutely NOT agreed upon. There is no general consensus on it. It cannot be stated as a fact. A large part of the members think quite the opposite: the charging scheme should be mostly based on IPv4 resources allocated to each LIR.
- Changing RIPE NCC status from non-taxable to taxable to have more flexibility in the fee schedule
Also this is not generally agreed, as I said there is no direct connection between tax status and "per usage charge" as long as the "per usage charge" is still done with a model of "class of memebership" and not as a "pay per IP".
This membership list isn't where the consensus is being made, it is an open discussion and the points provided by Nigel are a short summary of the various lines within the discussion. The actual voting (not consensus) is going to be done in the AGM. Be there to cast your vote or deal with it that others might vote something else. Personally, I would love to go for a none-resource based charging scheme, where we divide the required budget by the number of lirs and get over with this whole discussion (every year.) If the membership then has any issues with the provided budget, which is based on the (to-be) agreed activity plan, the 'only' discussion can be about various activities and the associated costs. It would make life for everyone a lot easier imho. Regards, Erik Bais
Dear Members, Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs. Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Hewlett-Packard Company. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) See in remarks: "From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe.". This space must be return to RIPE by current policy. Case 2. Inetnum: 53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Daimler AG. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This is not Telecom. Based on report Daimler AG: [1]http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/552... WorldWide Workforce: 271370 people. Does Daimler AG reely need real IP for each person? /8 = 16 777 216 IPs. So for each person in company Daimler AG need 16 777 216 / 271 370 = 64 IPs? Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. a) For free (legacy). b) This network doesn't have any routes. Case 4. Inetnum:151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). EARLY-REGISTRATION. WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. a) For free (legacy). Case 5. Inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 ( 3 604 480 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes. It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it. Source Information from RIPE whois. Date: 27 July 2012. 01:30 inetnum: 15.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255 netname: HP-INTERNET descr: Hewlett-Packard Company descr: European Networks Operation country: FR admin-c: VG1212 admin-c: DF5107 tech-c: VG1212 tech-c: DF5107 status: ASSIGNED PI remarks: Country is placeholder only. Real country is US. remarks: Refer to US registries for peering details. remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com mnt-by: AS71-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered person: Dominique Fillon address: Hewlett Packard Europe address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: Eybens address: Grenoble Cedex 9 address: 38053 address: France phone: +33 4 76 14 17 66 fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: DF5107 mnt-by: AS71-MNT mnt-by: AS1889-MNT remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com source: RIPE #Filtered person: Vincent Giles address: Hewlett Packard Europe address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: Eybens address: Grenoble Cedex 9 address: 38053 address: France phone: +33 4 76 14 64 77 fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: VG1212 mnt-by: AS71-MNT mnt-by: AS1889-MNT remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com source: RIPE #Filtered route: 15.0.0.0/8 descr: HP-INTERNET origin: AS71 remarks: From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe. remarks: Refer to whois.arin.net & whois.ra.net remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com mnt-by: AS71-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered route: 15.0.0.0/8 descr: Hewlett-Packard Company origin: AS7430 mnt-by: AS1889-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered =================================== inetnum: 53.0.0.0 - 53.255.255.255 netname: DAIMLER-NET1 descr: Daimler AG country: DE admin-c: BS4256-RIPE tech-c: BS4256-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered person: Bernhard Semmler address: Daimler AG address: HPC 0517 address: D-70546 Stuttgart address: Germany phone: +49 711 17 94591 fax-no: +49 711 17 79093478 nic-hdl: BS4256-RIPE mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered route: 53.0.0.0/8 descr: DAIMLER-NET1 origin: AS31399 mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered ================================= inetnum: 51.0.0.0 - 51.255.255.255 netname: UK-DWP descr: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions country: GB org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE admin-c: PW1754-RIPE tech-c: PW1754-RIPE status: EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered organisation: ORG-DWP1-RIPE org-name: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions org-type: OTHER descr: UK Government Department address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England admin-c: PW1754-RIPE tech-c: PW1754-RIPE mnt-ref: DWP-MNT mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered person: Peter Wightman address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE phone: +44 1925 845368 nic-hdl: PW1754-RIPE mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered ================================================ inetnum: 151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 netname: IT-WIND-LEGACY org: ORG-WTS2-RIPE descr: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A descr: IUnet descr: Via Lorenteggio 257 descr: Milano, I-20100 country: IT admin-c: IIS1-RIPE tech-c: IIS1-RIPE status: EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: AS1267-MNT mnt-lower: AS1267-MNT mnt-routes: AS1267-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered organisation: ORG-WTS2-RIPE org-name: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. org-type: LIR remarks: send mail to abuse@libero.it for complaints reguarding spam address: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. Via Cesare Giulio Viola, 48 00148 Rome Italy phone: +39 06 8311 6718 fax-no: +39 02 3011 5572 admin-c: FP453-RIPE admin-c: CL856-RIPE mnt-ref: WIND-MNT mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered person: Infostrada Internet Staff address: Infostrada SpA address: Via Lorenteggio 257 address: I-20152 Milano address: Italy phone: +39 02 30115015 nic-hdl: IIS1-RIPE mnt-by: AS1267-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered ====================================== inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 netname: EDF-NET05 descr: Electricite de France country: FR admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE tech-c: EDFC2-RIPE org: ORG-EdF1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: MNT-EDF mnt-routes: MNT-EDF mnt-domains: MNT-EDF mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered organisation: ORG-EdF1-RIPE org-name: Electricite de France Service National org-type: LIR address: Electricite de France Service National R&T / ONR 32 avenue Pablo Picasso 92016 Nanterre France phone: +33 1 78 66 84 73 fax-no: +33 1 78 66 71 02 mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-ref: MNT-EDF mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE admin-c: EDFC2-RIPE source: RIPE #Filtered role: EDF LIR Contact1 address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: 92016 - NANTERRE address: France admin-c: EDFA-RIPE tech-c: EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: EDFC1-RIPE remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: MNT-EDF source: RIPE #Filtered role: EDF LIR Contact2 address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: 92016 - NANTERRE address: France admin-c: EDFA-RIPE tech-c: EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: EDFC2-RIPE remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: MNT-EDF source: RIPE #Filtered -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. [1] http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/552...
I think you confuse a lot of things here and your information is flawed, these are *not* RIPE objects, these are ARIN spaces which just happen to have a route and inetnum object in the RIPE DB (see ARIN DB, which is authoritive for HP and Daimler networks)... You also confuse Pre-RIR with RIR space, Both HP and Daimler have zero obligation to return this networks (sure, it would be nice if they do, but they don't need to). PS: 15.0.0.0/8 HAS a route, AS71 (HP-INTERNET-AS) - The Daimler /8 is announced as well, and so is the WIND Legacy (151.3.0.0/16 and .4-.95.0.0/16 on AS1267 ASN-INFOSTRADA) William Weber -- EDIS GmbH NOC AS57169 - at.edisgmh - RIPE: WW Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 27.07.2012 um 01:11 schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru>:
Dear Members,
Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs.
Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Hewlett-Packard Company. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) See in remarks: "From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe.". This space must be return to RIPE by current policy.
Case 2. Inetnum: 53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Daimler AG. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This is not Telecom. Based on report Daimler AG: http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/552... WorldWide Workforce: 271370 people. Does Daimler AG reely need real IP for each person? /8 = 16 777 216 IPs. So for each person in company Daimler AG need 16 777 216 / 271 370 = 64 IPs?
Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. a) For free (legacy). b) This network doesn't have any routes.
Case 4. Inetnum:151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). EARLY-REGISTRATION. WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. a) For free (legacy).
Case 5. Inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 ( 3 604 480 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes.
It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it.
Source Information from RIPE whois.
Date: 27 July 2012. 01:30
inetnum: 15.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255 netname: HP-INTERNET descr: Hewlett-Packard Company descr: European Networks Operation country: FR admin-c: VG1212 admin-c: DF5107 tech-c: VG1212 tech-c: DF5107 status: ASSIGNED PI remarks: Country is placeholder only. Real country is US. remarks: Refer to US registries for peering details. remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com mnt-by: AS71-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Dominique Fillon address: Hewlett Packard Europe address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: Eybens address: Grenoble Cedex 9 address: 38053 address: France phone: +33 4 76 14 17 66 fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: DF5107 mnt-by: AS71-MNT mnt-by: AS1889-MNT remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Vincent Giles address: Hewlett Packard Europe address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: Eybens address: Grenoble Cedex 9 address: 38053 address: France phone: +33 4 76 14 64 77 fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: VG1212 mnt-by: AS71-MNT mnt-by: AS1889-MNT remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com source: RIPE #Filtered
route: 15.0.0.0/8 descr: HP-INTERNET origin: AS71 remarks: From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe. remarks: Refer to whois.arin.net & whois.ra.net remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com mnt-by: AS71-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
route: 15.0.0.0/8 descr: Hewlett-Packard Company origin: AS7430 mnt-by: AS1889-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
===================================
inetnum: 53.0.0.0 - 53.255.255.255 netname: DAIMLER-NET1 descr: Daimler AG country: DE admin-c: BS4256-RIPE tech-c: BS4256-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Bernhard Semmler address: Daimler AG address: HPC 0517 address: D-70546 Stuttgart address: Germany phone: +49 711 17 94591 fax-no: +49 711 17 79093478 nic-hdl: BS4256-RIPE mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
route: 53.0.0.0/8 descr: DAIMLER-NET1 origin: AS31399 mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
=================================
inetnum: 51.0.0.0 - 51.255.255.255 netname: UK-DWP descr: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions country: GB org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE admin-c: PW1754-RIPE tech-c: PW1754-RIPE status: EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
organisation: ORG-DWP1-RIPE org-name: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions org-type: OTHER descr: UK Government Department address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England admin-c: PW1754-RIPE tech-c: PW1754-RIPE mnt-ref: DWP-MNT mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Peter Wightman address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE phone: +44 1925 845368 nic-hdl: PW1754-RIPE mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
================================================
inetnum: 151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 netname: IT-WIND-LEGACY org: ORG-WTS2-RIPE descr: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A descr: IUnet descr: Via Lorenteggio 257 descr: Milano, I-20100 country: IT admin-c: IIS1-RIPE tech-c: IIS1-RIPE status: EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: AS1267-MNT mnt-lower: AS1267-MNT mnt-routes: AS1267-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
organisation: ORG-WTS2-RIPE org-name: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. org-type: LIR remarks: send mail to abuse@libero.it for complaints reguarding spam address: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. Via Cesare Giulio Viola, 48 00148 Rome Italy phone: +39 06 8311 6718 fax-no: +39 02 3011 5572 admin-c: FP453-RIPE admin-c: CL856-RIPE mnt-ref: WIND-MNT mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Infostrada Internet Staff address: Infostrada SpA address: Via Lorenteggio 257 address: I-20152 Milano address: Italy phone: +39 02 30115015 nic-hdl: IIS1-RIPE mnt-by: AS1267-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
======================================
inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 netname: EDF-NET05 descr: Electricite de France country: FR admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE tech-c: EDFC2-RIPE org: ORG-EdF1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: MNT-EDF mnt-routes: MNT-EDF mnt-domains: MNT-EDF mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
organisation: ORG-EdF1-RIPE org-name: Electricite de France Service National org-type: LIR address: Electricite de France Service National R&T / ONR 32 avenue Pablo Picasso 92016 Nanterre France phone: +33 1 78 66 84 73 fax-no: +33 1 78 66 71 02 mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-ref: MNT-EDF mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE admin-c: EDFC2-RIPE source: RIPE #Filtered
role: EDF LIR Contact1 address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: 92016 - NANTERRE address: France admin-c: EDFA-RIPE tech-c: EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: EDFC1-RIPE remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: MNT-EDF source: RIPE #Filtered
role: EDF LIR Contact2 address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: 92016 - NANTERRE address: France admin-c: EDFA-RIPE tech-c: EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: EDFC2-RIPE remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: MNT-EDF source: RIPE #Filtered
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi Alexey, Historic allocations won't be changed, except if these companies give some of their space back by their own. Not seeing any routes in DFZ, doesn't mean it is un-used or free. I know that the Dutch KPN uses large subnets internally in their network for management and such, without routing these subnets into the DFZ. That will also apply to companies like HP and alike. And if the new transfer policy comes into place, it will probably come on the 'market' if they don't need it. I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it. There is probably much more to be found on free or un-used space within the current allocations, lirs that have merged with others, un-used (but still routed space) you name it, but that whatever policy we are trying to make here, it won't fix it... V4 is almost depleted, get over it, why prolong the inevitable.. That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... I love to be proven wrong but I'm willing to take bets on that .. Which should be taken as a fair warning that you will loose your money ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ... Regards, Erik Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 27 jul. 2012 om 01:11 heeft LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> het volgende geschreven:
Dear Members,
Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs.
Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Hewlett-Packard Company. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) See in remarks: "From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe.". This space must be return to RIPE by current policy.
Case 2. Inetnum: 53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Daimler AG. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This is not Telecom. Based on report Daimler AG: http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/552... WorldWide Workforce: 271370 people. Does Daimler AG reely need real IP for each person? /8 = 16 777 216 IPs. So for each person in company Daimler AG need 16 777 216 / 271 370 = 64 IPs?
Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. a) For free (legacy). b) This network doesn't have any routes.
Case 4. Inetnum:151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). EARLY-REGISTRATION. WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. a) For free (legacy).
Case 5. Inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 ( 3 604 480 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes.
It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it.
Source Information from RIPE whois.
Date: 27 July 2012. 01:30
inetnum: 15.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255 netname: HP-INTERNET descr: Hewlett-Packard Company descr: European Networks Operation country: FR admin-c: VG1212 admin-c: DF5107 tech-c: VG1212 tech-c: DF5107 status: ASSIGNED PI remarks: Country is placeholder only. Real country is US. remarks: Refer to US registries for peering details. remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com mnt-by: AS71-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Dominique Fillon address: Hewlett Packard Europe address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: Eybens address: Grenoble Cedex 9 address: 38053 address: France phone: +33 4 76 14 17 66 fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: DF5107 mnt-by: AS71-MNT mnt-by: AS1889-MNT remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Vincent Giles address: Hewlett Packard Europe address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: Eybens address: Grenoble Cedex 9 address: 38053 address: France phone: +33 4 76 14 64 77 fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: VG1212 mnt-by: AS71-MNT mnt-by: AS1889-MNT remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com source: RIPE #Filtered
route: 15.0.0.0/8 descr: HP-INTERNET origin: AS71 remarks: From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe. remarks: Refer to whois.arin.net & whois.ra.net remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com mnt-by: AS71-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
route: 15.0.0.0/8 descr: Hewlett-Packard Company origin: AS7430 mnt-by: AS1889-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
===================================
inetnum: 53.0.0.0 - 53.255.255.255 netname: DAIMLER-NET1 descr: Daimler AG country: DE admin-c: BS4256-RIPE tech-c: BS4256-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Bernhard Semmler address: Daimler AG address: HPC 0517 address: D-70546 Stuttgart address: Germany phone: +49 711 17 94591 fax-no: +49 711 17 79093478 nic-hdl: BS4256-RIPE mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
route: 53.0.0.0/8 descr: DAIMLER-NET1 origin: AS31399 mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
=================================
inetnum: 51.0.0.0 - 51.255.255.255 netname: UK-DWP descr: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions country: GB org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE admin-c: PW1754-RIPE tech-c: PW1754-RIPE status: EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
organisation: ORG-DWP1-RIPE org-name: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions org-type: OTHER descr: UK Government Department address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England admin-c: PW1754-RIPE tech-c: PW1754-RIPE mnt-ref: DWP-MNT mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Peter Wightman address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE phone: +44 1925 845368 nic-hdl: PW1754-RIPE mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
================================================
inetnum: 151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 netname: IT-WIND-LEGACY org: ORG-WTS2-RIPE descr: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A descr: IUnet descr: Via Lorenteggio 257 descr: Milano, I-20100 country: IT admin-c: IIS1-RIPE tech-c: IIS1-RIPE status: EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: AS1267-MNT mnt-lower: AS1267-MNT mnt-routes: AS1267-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
organisation: ORG-WTS2-RIPE org-name: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. org-type: LIR remarks: send mail to abuse@libero.it for complaints reguarding spam address: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. Via Cesare Giulio Viola, 48 00148 Rome Italy phone: +39 06 8311 6718 fax-no: +39 02 3011 5572 admin-c: FP453-RIPE admin-c: CL856-RIPE mnt-ref: WIND-MNT mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
person: Infostrada Internet Staff address: Infostrada SpA address: Via Lorenteggio 257 address: I-20152 Milano address: Italy phone: +39 02 30115015 nic-hdl: IIS1-RIPE mnt-by: AS1267-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
======================================
inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 netname: EDF-NET05 descr: Electricite de France country: FR admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE tech-c: EDFC2-RIPE org: ORG-EdF1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: MNT-EDF mnt-routes: MNT-EDF mnt-domains: MNT-EDF mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
organisation: ORG-EdF1-RIPE org-name: Electricite de France Service National org-type: LIR address: Electricite de France Service National R&T / ONR 32 avenue Pablo Picasso 92016 Nanterre France phone: +33 1 78 66 84 73 fax-no: +33 1 78 66 71 02 mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-ref: MNT-EDF mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE admin-c: EDFC2-RIPE source: RIPE #Filtered
role: EDF LIR Contact1 address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: 92016 - NANTERRE address: France admin-c: EDFA-RIPE tech-c: EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: EDFC1-RIPE remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: MNT-EDF source: RIPE #Filtered
role: EDF LIR Contact2 address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: 92016 - NANTERRE address: France admin-c: EDFA-RIPE tech-c: EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: EDFC2-RIPE remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: MNT-EDF source: RIPE #Filtered
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hello, I also think there is a strong message on the "doing v6 for 15 years already" part. Probably most people are not "getting over it", but at least they know they can jump onto something which is working for many years now... Regards, Carlos On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Erik Bais wrote:
Hi Alexey,
Historic allocations won't be changed, except if these companies give some of their space back by their own. Not seeing any routes in DFZ, doesn't mean it is un-used or free. I know that the Dutch KPN uses large subnets internally in their network for management and such, without routing these subnets into the DFZ. That will also apply to companies like HP and alike. And if the new transfer policy comes into place, it will probably come on the 'market' if they don't need it. I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was :
<quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote>
That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
There is probably much more to be found on free or un-used space within the current allocations, lirs that have merged with others, un-used (but still routed space) you name it, but that whatever policy we are trying to make here, it won't fix it... V4 is almost depleted, get over it, why prolong the inevitable..
That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ...
I love to be proven wrong but I'm willing to take bets on that .. Which should be taken as a fair warning that you will loose your money ...
A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
Regards, Erik
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 27 jul. 2012 om 01:11 heeft LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> het volgende geschreven:
Dear Members,
Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs.
Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Hewlett-Packard Company. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) See in remarks: "From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe.". This space must be return to RIPE by current policy.
Case 2. Inetnum: 53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Daimler AG. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This is not Telecom. Based on report Daimler AG: http://sustainability.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2012/nb/English/552... WorldWide Workforce: 271370 people. Does Daimler AG reely need real IP for each person? /8 = 16 777 216 IPs. So for each person in company Daimler AG need 16 777 216 / 271 370 = 64 IPs?
Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. a) For free (legacy). b) This network doesn't have any routes.
Case 4. Inetnum:151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). EARLY-REGISTRATION. WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. a) For free (legacy).
Case 5. Inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 ( 3 604 480 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes.
It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it.
Source Information from RIPE whois.
Date: 27 July 2012. 01:30
inetnum: 15.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255 netname: HP-INTERNET descr: Hewlett-Packard Company descr: European Networks Operation country: FR admin-c: VG1212 admin-c: DF5107 tech-c: VG1212 tech-c: DF5107 status: ASSIGNED PI remarks: Country is placeholder only. Real country is US. remarks: Refer to US registries for peering details. remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com mnt-by: AS71-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered person: Dominique Fillon address: Hewlett Packard Europe address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: Eybens address: Grenoble Cedex 9 address: 38053 address: France phone: +33 4 76 14 17 66 fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: DF5107 mnt-by: AS71-MNT mnt-by: AS1889-MNT remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com source: RIPE #Filtered person: Vincent Giles address: Hewlett Packard Europe address: 5, Avenus Raymond Chanas address: Eybens address: Grenoble Cedex 9 address: 38053 address: France phone: +33 4 76 14 64 77 fax-no: +33 4 76 14 69 00 nic-hdl: VG1212 mnt-by: AS71-MNT mnt-by: AS1889-MNT remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com source: RIPE #Filtered route: 15.0.0.0/8 descr: HP-INTERNET origin: AS71 remarks: From 27th June 1998, no origin in Europe. remarks: Refer to whois.arin.net & whois.ra.net remarks: For security incidents reporting please contact : abuse@hp.com mnt-by: AS71-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered route: 15.0.0.0/8 descr: Hewlett-Packard Company origin: AS7430 mnt-by: AS1889-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
===================================
inetnum: 53.0.0.0 - 53.255.255.255 netname: DAIMLER-NET1 descr: Daimler AG country: DE admin-c: BS4256-RIPE tech-c: BS4256-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered person: Bernhard Semmler address: Daimler AG address: HPC 0517 address: D-70546 Stuttgart address: Germany phone: +49 711 17 94591 fax-no: +49 711 17 79093478 nic-hdl: BS4256-RIPE mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered route: 53.0.0.0/8 descr: DAIMLER-NET1 origin: AS31399 mnt-by: DAIMLER-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered =================================
inetnum: 51.0.0.0 - 51.255.255.255 netname: UK-DWP descr: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions country: GB org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE admin-c: PW1754-RIPE tech-c: PW1754-RIPE status: EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered organisation: ORG-DWP1-RIPE org-name: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions org-type: OTHER descr: UK Government Department address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England admin-c: PW1754-RIPE tech-c: PW1754-RIPE mnt-ref: DWP-MNT mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered person: Peter Wightman address: 301 Bridgewater Place Birchwood Park Warrington England org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE phone: +44 1925 845368 nic-hdl: PW1754-RIPE mnt-by: DWP-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered ================================================
inetnum: 151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 netname: IT-WIND-LEGACY org: ORG-WTS2-RIPE descr: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A descr: IUnet descr: Via Lorenteggio 257 descr: Milano, I-20100 country: IT admin-c: IIS1-RIPE tech-c: IIS1-RIPE status: EARLY-REGISTRATION mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: AS1267-MNT mnt-lower: AS1267-MNT mnt-routes: AS1267-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered organisation: ORG-WTS2-RIPE org-name: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. org-type: LIR remarks: send mail to abuse@libero.it for complaints reguarding spam address: WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. Via Cesare Giulio Viola, 48 00148 Rome Italy phone: +39 06 8311 6718 fax-no: +39 02 3011 5572 admin-c: FP453-RIPE admin-c: CL856-RIPE mnt-ref: WIND-MNT mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered person: Infostrada Internet Staff address: Infostrada SpA address: Via Lorenteggio 257 address: I-20152 Milano address: Italy phone: +39 02 30115015 nic-hdl: IIS1-RIPE mnt-by: AS1267-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered
======================================
inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 netname: EDF-NET05 descr: Electricite de France country: FR admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE tech-c: EDFC2-RIPE org: ORG-EdF1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: MNT-EDF mnt-routes: MNT-EDF mnt-domains: MNT-EDF mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT source: RIPE #Filtered organisation: ORG-EdF1-RIPE org-name: Electricite de France Service National org-type: LIR address: Electricite de France Service National R&T / ONR 32 avenue Pablo Picasso 92016 Nanterre France phone: +33 1 78 66 84 73 fax-no: +33 1 78 66 71 02 mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-ref: MNT-EDF mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT admin-c: EDFC1-RIPE admin-c: EDFC2-RIPE source: RIPE #Filtered role: EDF LIR Contact1 address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: 92016 - NANTERRE address: France admin-c: EDFA-RIPE tech-c: EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: EDFC1-RIPE remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: MNT-EDF source: RIPE #Filtered role: EDF LIR Contact2 address: EDF - DIT/R&T/ONR address: 32, avenue Pablo Picasso address: 92016 - NANTERRE address: France admin-c: EDFA-RIPE tech-c: EDFT-RIPE nic-hdl: EDFC2-RIPE remarks: Contacts for the LIR EDF mnt-by: MNT-EDF source: RIPE #Filtered
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Erik,
I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.
That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
you go to your CFO -now- and tell them you need new equipment -now- ?!?!?!?! HELLO IPv6 support has been around since the late 1990s. if you didn't get new equipment since then , how are you still in business and not being totally rooted every other day? basically you're saying all your stuff is 16 years old. On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Dear Erik,
I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.
That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
As mentioned before, some vendors still want paying in the order of $£1M for a licence in order to enable the use of IPV6 on their systems/software which can delay the uptake of IPV6. So it's not just a matter of hardware upgrades. M. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis Sent: 27 July 2012 12:11 To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. Cc: Erik Bais; members-discuss@ripe.net; Nigel Titley Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region you go to your CFO -now- and tell them you need new equipment -now- ?!?!?!?! HELLO IPv6 support has been around since the late 1990s. if you didn't get new equipment since then , how are you still in business and not being totally rooted every other day? basically you're saying all your stuff is 16 years old. On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Dear Erik,
I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.
That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb@talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ##############################################################################
then just threatten them to get another vendor for -everything- ... quite sure they'll go for the 'ok here you have the 1M licence for free as long as you keep buying 10M/yr in equipment for us' option. also as for CPE, most of that stuff can easily run linux... developers in india could be cheaper than 9889483989 new adsl modems. (so just get your OWN firmware in that case) On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Mark Jones (MK) wrote:
As mentioned before, some vendors still want paying in the order of $£1M for a licence in order to enable the use of IPV6 on their systems/software which can delay the uptake of IPV6. So it's not just a matter of hardware upgrades.
M.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis Sent: 27 July 2012 12:11 To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. Cc: Erik Bais; members-discuss@ripe.net; Nigel Titley Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
you go to your CFO -now- and tell them you need new equipment -now- ?!?!?!?!
HELLO IPv6 support has been around since the late 1990s.
if you didn't get new equipment since then , how are you still in business and not being totally rooted every other day?
basically you're saying all your stuff is 16 years old.
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Dear Erik,
I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.
That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb@talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it.
Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries. Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ##############################################################################
in either way, hardware that doesn't do ipv6 is a complete writeoff, so its either the 1M license or regard the entire stuff as scrapmetal (or find another way to force them to enable ipv6 on it, such as blackmailing them with buying new equipment elsewhere in the future, which is MORE loss to them than the 1M ;) On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
then just threatten them to get another vendor for -everything- ...
quite sure they'll go for the 'ok here you have the 1M licence for free as long as you keep buying 10M/yr in equipment for us' option.
also as for CPE, most of that stuff can easily run linux... developers in india could be cheaper than 9889483989 new adsl modems.
(so just get your OWN firmware in that case)
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Mark Jones (MK) wrote:
As mentioned before, some vendors still want paying in the order of $£1M for a licence in order to enable the use of IPV6 on their systems/software which can delay the uptake of IPV6. So it's not just a matter of hardware upgrades.
M.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis Sent: 27 July 2012 12:11 To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. Cc: Erik Bais; members-discuss@ripe.net; Nigel Titley Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
you go to your CFO -now- and tell them you need new equipment -now- ?!?!?!?!
HELLO IPv6 support has been around since the late 1990s.
if you didn't get new equipment since then , how are you still in business and not being totally rooted every other day?
basically you're saying all your stuff is 16 years old.
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Dear Erik,
I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.
That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
############################################################################## This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our IT Service Desk immediately by e-mail at abuse.ttb@talktalkplc.com Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it.
Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation.
For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC and/or any of its subsidiaries.
Please feel free to visit our website: www.talktalkgroup.com
TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc (Registered in England & Wales No. 7105891) 11 Evesham Street, London W11 4AR ##############################################################################
and yes, by all means, go to your cfo and tell him he is running your company into the wall... preferably at a shareholder meeting :P not having working ipv6 in 2012 is just utter incompetence. On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Dear Erik,
I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.
That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
27.07.12 13:34, Sven Olaf Kamphuis написав(ла):
and yes, by all means, go to your cfo and tell him he is running your company into the wall... preferably at a shareholder meeting :P
not having working ipv6 in 2012 is just utter incompetence.
...and if cfo is wise enough in tech part of company - replied: "yes, having working ipv6 in 2012 is fun, but useless" :)
Dear Erik,
I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.
I have heard that before, and moreover there is a training cost for sysadmin and tech guys and call center. the point to me is also: who will pay 5 Euros, or 50 Euros for 1 IPv4 when the transition will be completed? I mean, if a customer wants a /24 it's a very good deal: a lot of money for a rare resource But what will happen with those companies that are basing part of their business upon IPv4 address incomes?
That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6?
it seems we are going a little off topic, but not so much: if one ISP will ask for IPv4 and it will be over, in Italy it means that ISP will not be able to connect with most of the Italian (end user generated) traffic. As I said, there is no plan to implement dual stack and the "future proof solution" that has been proposed is IPv4 + NAT. We will go via NAT networks, lovely isn't it? Which in my understanding poses a problem regarding the market: what will be the performances of a customer with pure IPv6 ISP when trying to reach big systems with Italy with ONLY IPv4? -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
Dear Paolo,
As I said, there is no plan to implement dual stack and the "future proof solution" that has been proposed is IPv4 + NAT. We will go via NAT networks, lovely isn't it?
I think it is not only about Italy. As usual customer I don't see IPv6 around me. ISP in our business center doesn't support IPv6. At home i have only IPv4 too. O yes, IPv6 was installed on some our servers. I can ping Gooooogle. Thats all. No any clients use IPv6. Big telecoms in Russia made some tests and switched back to IPv4. Does any global telecom support IPv6? I just checked some answers. For example, here I see that custommer report to Vodafone that IPv6 doesn't work. And support tell that it is not problem, while IPv6 is not supported: [1]http://community.vodafone.com.au/t5/Mobile-Broadband/Mobile-Broadband-Ipv4-a... "This being said, the IPv6 isn't something that Vodafone currently supports so wouldn't be the cause of your connectivity issue. Your broadband device would only be programmed to run on the original IPv4." -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 27.07.2012 14:40 - Paolo Di Francesco написал(а):
Dear Erik,
> I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN > pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : > <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do > the same ...</end quote> > That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.
I have heard that before, and moreover there is a training cost for sysadmin and tech guys and call center. the point to me is also: who will pay 5 Euros, or 50 Euros for 1 IPv4 when the transition will be completed? I mean, if a customer wants a /24 it's a very good deal: a lot of money for a rare resource But what will happen with those companies that are basing part of their business upon IPv4 address incomes?
> That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes > into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. > And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... > A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the > above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have > this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6?
it seems we are going a little off topic, but not so much: if one ISP will ask for IPv4 and it will be over, in Italy it means that ISP will not be able to connect with most of the Italian (end user generated) traffic. As I said, there is no plan to implement dual stack and the "future proof solution" that has been proposed is IPv4 + NAT. We will go via NAT networks, lovely isn't it? Which in my understanding poses a problem regarding the market: what will be the performances of a customer with pure IPv6 ISP when trying to reach big systems with Italy with ONLY IPv4? -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: [2]http://www.level7.it ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [3]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] http://community.vodafone.com.au/t5/Mobile-Broadband/Mobile-Broadband-Ipv4-a... [2] http://www.level7.it [3] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Hi!
Does any global telecom support IPv6?
I was recently visiting in Idaho, US, at Priest Lake. No fixed line connections, but Verizon LTE, using IPv6 space, was working. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 8 years to go ! Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net Rathausstr. 3 fax +49 7123 93006-99 72658 Bempflingen mob +49 171 3101372
Hi Kurt if you don't mind, what phone model? (iPhone, Android, etc) did you connect to the internet? any idea how they were "natting" the IPv4 content on their network? Thank you
Hi!
Does any global telecom support IPv6?
I was recently visiting in Idaho, US, at Priest Lake. No fixed line connections, but Verizon LTE, using IPv6 space, was working.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
Hi!
if you don't mind, what phone model? (iPhone, Android, etc)
It was some data-only device, I was using it with some Windows Vista laptop.
did you connect to the internet?
Yes.
any idea how they were "natting" the IPv4 content on their network?
The device also provided IPv4 adresses. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 8 years to go ! Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net Rathausstr. 3 fax +49 7123 93006-99 72658 Bempflingen mob +49 171 3101372
also look at it from the other side: keeping ipv4 around just to have your nodes connect to obsolete stuff run by incompetent other companies, costs the rest of the internet money too. lots of it. (Extra manhours maintaining configurations for ipv4 routing and ipv4 dns) while WE could perfectly do with just ipv6 only. (just that then deutsche telecom goes hudini for our users, to name something ;) google, facebook, etc have all figured it out by now :P people with ipv4 are on the losing end :P (and yes, at some point, we'll just switch it off... and then those with ipv4 only are out of luck :P not implementing ipv6 == deliberately running company into wall. as for arguments to your cfo... what does 'filling out tax forms' bring the company... new customers? surely not... avoid it being raided by the cops and shut down? definately.... same way... ipv6 won't bring you new customers, but it is a requirement to stay around. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB LLTC. ========================================================================= Address: C/O German Embassy of the Republic CyberBunker Koloniestrasse 34 D-13359 Registration: #8 CBTR GERMANIA Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Das Gross Deutsche Reich RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE skype: CB3ROB ========================================================================= SMTP email is depreciated, please upgrade to skype. skype:CB3ROB http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Dear Erik,
I spoke with someone from Surfnet a while ago (they also have a /8 and a whole block of 16 bit ASN pre-RIPE) and on they question if they would return space to RIPE, their answer was : <quote>Why prolong the inevitable, we have been doing v6 for 15 years already. Everyone should do the same ...</end quote> That reasoning is very true and I do agree with it.
Yes, from technical point of view it is excelent answer and probably ideal way for internet. But when you goes to CFO and tell that you need new equipment - he will ask reason why you need additional investments? All works well. You can tell stories about IPv4 and IPv6... But from finance point of view it doesn't make any sense. Run IPv6 and what next? It will give you new customers? Or current cusomers will pay mode money? NOOOO! It is just extra expenses. It time when each company try to cut costs impossible to invest money in word "IPv6". But! If cost IPv4 will grow - then it will be very simple for companies to understund that chaeper will be migrate to IPv6.
That is also why a charging scheme based on v4 is short lived and out-dated by the time it comes into action. The first RIPE invoice based on it, will be when the resource pool is already in the final /8. And that pool won't magically grow back above it ... A charging scheme based on budget / nr of members is my prediction where things should go for the above mentioned reasons, why based it on a resource or charge for a resource that is gone ... To have this discussion again in one or two years ? Please spare me ...
But RIPE must support servers, software and etc which support IPv4. And all this expenses must pay LIRs? When IPv4 will finished and new LIRs will get only IPv6 - why they must pay a huge money for support IPv4 when they will provide only IPv6? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
Dear William,
I think you confuse a lot of things here and your information is flawed, these are *not* RIPE objects, these are ARIN spaces which just happen to have a route and inetnum object in the RIPE DB (see ARIN DB, which is authoritive for HP and Daimler networks)...
O! Yes, thank you. This 2 in ARIN DB for now.
WIND Legacy (151.3.0.0/16 and .4-.95.0.0/16 on AS1267 ASN-INFOSTRADA)
They have routes, but not pay for this resource to RIPE. May be all this IPs in use. But I very sceptical that they use all 5 miliones IPs. Anyway they don't pay for this resources. And it is Legacy right now.
Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. a) For free (legacy). b) This network doesn't have any routes.
What about this /8 network? It is legacy and doesn't have any routes.
Case 5. Inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 ( 3 604 480 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes.
The same. Do you need another examples? Case 6. Inetnum: 171.28.0.0 - 171.30.255.255 ( 196 608 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Global Crossing. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network has routes for part of space ( 171.30.0.0/16). Case 7. Inetnum: 193.244.0.0 - 193.245.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. KBC Group NV a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes. Case 8. Inetnum: 148.252.0.0 - 148.253.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes. Case 9. Inetnum: 161.89.0.0 - 161.90.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Atos Origin. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network has routes. Case 10. Inetnum: 157.28.0.0 - 157.29.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. BT Italia S.p.A. (formerly Albacom S.p.A) a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network has routes. I suggest to stop charge 50 EUR for each PI resource. We have a lot of examples when company can use more than 100 000 IPs and pay 50 EUR to RIPE. And we have a lot of LIRs which pay 2000 EUR Sign-up Fee and 1300-1800 EUR every year and use 512-1024 IP. The contribution from membership and value are too different. -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
Dear Alexey, WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they run NAT now... Case 3.: Yes, unused BUT legacy - I think you did not understand that the RIPE (and no other RIR) has *ANY* authority over this networks - Neither RIPE, nor ARIN, not even ICANN, can force these to return their space. Case 5,6,7,8.: There are maybe some routes inside this network, who knows - it could may be returned. Case 9/10.: These are used. This spaces are mainly very, very, very old (new registrations JUST after RIPE was established) - PI was completely different handled back then (nearly anyone used PI instead of PA)... -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william@edisglobal.com | william@edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 27.07.2012 um 10:12 schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.:
Dear William,
I think you confuse a lot of things here and your information is flawed, these are *not* RIPE objects, these are ARIN spaces which just happen to have a route and inetnum object in the RIPE DB (see ARIN DB, which is authoritive for HP and Daimler networks)... O! Yes, thank you. This 2 in ARIN DB for now.
WIND Legacy (151.3.0.0/16 and .4-.95.0.0/16 on AS1267 ASN-INFOSTRADA) They have routes, but not pay for this resource to RIPE. May be all this IPs in use. But I very sceptical that they use all 5 miliones IPs. Anyway they don't pay for this resources. And it is Legacy right now.
Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. a) For free (legacy). b) This network doesn't have any routes.
What about this /8 network? It is legacy and doesn't have any routes.
Case 5. Inetnum: 163.62.0.0 - 163.116.255.255 ( 3 604 480 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Electricite de France. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes.
The same.
Do you need another examples?
Case 6. Inetnum: 171.28.0.0 - 171.30.255.255 ( 196 608 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Global Crossing. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network has routes for part of space ( 171.30.0.0/16).
Case 7. Inetnum: 193.244.0.0 - 193.245.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. KBC Group NV a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes.
Case 8. Inetnum: 148.252.0.0 - 148.253.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network doesn't have any routes.
Case 9. Inetnum: 161.89.0.0 - 161.90.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Atos Origin. a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network has routes.
Case 10. Inetnum: 157.28.0.0 - 157.29.255.255 ( 131 072 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. BT Italia S.p.A. (formerly Albacom S.p.A) a) Based on current and new charging scheme RIPE will charge for this resource only 50 EUR. b) This network has routes.
I suggest to stop charge 50 EUR for each PI resource. We have a lot of examples when company can use more than 100 000 IPs and pay 50 EUR to RIPE. And we have a lot of LIRs which pay 2000 EUR Sign-up Fee and 1300-1800 EUR every year and use 512-1024 IP. The contribution from membership and value are too different.
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi William
WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they run NAT now...
I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy: 1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the Italian government 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will never implement it so far because: 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 traffic...) 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide dual stack 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem brand, I don't know) 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6 We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6 Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, long time. Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge damage for the whole community. It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying more than big telcos. Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions untouched. Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers???? But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right? Best regards -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
how about the entire class-e space (244/8 and up) milnet (21,22,26) etc all of which not-announced at all. but better you just switch to v6 :P as for the e-class space, nobody seems to 'claim' it so just use it lol On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
Hi William
WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they run NAT now...
I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy:
1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the Italian government 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will never implement it so far because: 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 traffic...) 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide dual stack 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem brand, I don't know) 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6
We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6
Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, long time.
Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge damage for the whole community.
It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying more than big telcos.
Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions untouched.
Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers????
But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration
As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right?
Best regards
--
Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Yea.... we all know you are *THE* expert about hijacked space ;-) -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william@edisglobal.com | william@edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 27.07.2012 um 12:14 schrieb Sven Olaf Kamphuis:
how about the entire class-e space (244/8 and up)
milnet (21,22,26)
etc
all of which not-announced at all.
but better you just switch to v6 :P
as for the e-class space, nobody seems to 'claim' it so just use it lol
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
Hi William
WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they run NAT now...
I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy:
1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the Italian government 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will never implement it so far because: 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 traffic...) 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide dual stack 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem brand, I don't know) 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6
We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6
Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, long time.
Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge damage for the whole community.
It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying more than big telcos.
Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions untouched.
Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers????
But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration
As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right?
Best regards
--
Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Paolo, I had a BT line in Italy (Now "Albacom" i think, AS8968) and i am not sure what you mean... We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed (Hell, even multilevel NAT....) I am also not sure what you refer to with the IPv6 problems - Just buy Level3, GBLX, Telecom Italia, Cogent or whatever transit - Why do you need to rely on the local telco? (Is there no Last Line Unbundling in Italy?) Our ISP in Milano does IPv6 over DSL as well (and over FTTH, and in our case to our colocation)..... -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william@edisglobal.com | william@edis.at | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria Am 27.07.2012 um 12:05 schrieb Paolo Di Francesco:
Hi William
WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they run NAT now...
I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy:
1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the Italian government 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will never implement it so far because: 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 traffic...) 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide dual stack 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem brand, I don't know) 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6
We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6
Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, long time.
Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge damage for the whole community.
It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying more than big telcos.
Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions untouched.
Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers????
But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration
As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right?
Best regards
--
Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi William
Dear Paolo,
I had a BT line in Italy (Now "Albacom" i think, AS8968) and i am not sure what you mean...
it's the opposite I guess, what was Albacom now it's BT
We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed (Hell, even multilevel NAT....)
As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" with is quite long to explain. But the law says "one contract = one public IP". Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;) (quite off topic on the list)
I am also not sure what you refer to with the IPv6 problems - Just buy Level3, GBLX, Telecom Italia, Cogent or whatever transit - Why do you need to rely on the local telco? (Is there no Last Line Unbundling in Italy?)
not getting your point sorry :( I have native IPv6 but I cannot connect with Telecom Italia for example, because they do not do IPv6 peering (last time I asked they wanted to tunnel me) Not even sure that Wind or Fastweb are natively peering IPv6 in Italy (at least last time I asked, now I do not have interest considering that their customers will not be IPv6) I was talking of the fact that big operators here will not give dual stack to end users. So yes, I can have my customers on IPv6 but they will never "talk in IPv6" with big-operator-customers
Our ISP in Milano does IPv6 over DSL as well (and over FTTH, and in our case to our colocation).....
I guess our ISP is not Telecom Italia, Wind, or Fastweb or you have a business contract (i.e. not standard) :) well IPv6 for end users and mobile customers will not happen for a loooong time in Italy if I consider what big Italian operators said so far Obviously, if you pay extra for dual stack IPv6 (i.e. business premium contract) they say they do, but not for home/mobile users. "Not today and not in the near future" this is what they said
-- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh william@edisglobal.com <mailto:william@edisglobal.com> | william@edis.at <mailto:william@edis.at> | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Graz, Austria
Am 27.07.2012 um 12:05 schrieb Paolo Di Francesco:
Hi William
WIND uses by far *more* than 5mil IPs - They are the second largest access provider in Italy, in fact they are so short already that they run NAT now...
I guess it's not the only net allocated to wind, but just to make things clear regarding the IPv4-IPv6 situation in Italy:
1) at the current date each provider MUST allocate one public IPv4 for each contract (not customer, contract, which means if you have one company with 50 employees at minimum one public IPv4 must be allocated) 2) NAT (=multiple customers beyond one public IP) with some form of "connection tracking" has been proposed, but yet not accepted by the Italian government 3) the big telco told us that dual stack cannot be done and they will never implement it so far because: 3.a) there is no mobile device well supporting IPv6 3.b) IPv6 traffic is insignificant, the traffic is only IPv4 (well if they do not provider IPv6 to customers I see some barriers to have IPv6 traffic...) 3.c) IPv6 WILL NOT HAPPEN for a looooong time, and they will NOT provide dual stack 3.d) xDSL modems do not support IPv6 (maybe they should change modem brand, I don't know) 3.e) operating systems are not supporting IPv6
We asked them to give dual stack, but the message that I have heard is: no only IPv4 and NAT is the solution for the future, then maybe in some years (5? 10? 20??) we will reconsider IPv6
Therefore I see small and medium ISP running dual stack to be "future ready" while large operators in Italy will run IPv4 and NAT for a long, long time.
Now if RIPE will consider a dual fee for IPv4 and IPv6 I guess that it will not help small LIRs to implement IPv6 and that will be a huge damage for the whole community.
It will be funny that small ISP are implementing IPv6 and maybe paying more than big telcos.
Regarding the IPv4-IPv6 policy, my personal opinion is that it's a commercial war: the longer IPv6 dual stack or transition will take, the better will be to keep the market closed and the current positions untouched.
Should we consider an extra fee if you do NOT use IPv6 for customers????
But as I said, we should split the two discussions: one regarding IPv4 and IPv6 allocation (and mistakes of the past, when nobody knew what the hell was an IP) and another one regarding RIPE fees. Not saying those two things are not related just saying that IPv4 re-allocation policy for huge systems should be taken into serious consideration
As a last note: if Wind and other operators are using NAT and they are happy with that (instead of implementing dual stack and migration mechanisms) then they DO NOT NEED IPv4, and then then can give it back to RIPE. If with one IPv4 you can put 1,000-10,000 customers, hey we are 60 millions in Italy we need few public IPv4 for big LIRS, right?
Best regards
--
Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
It is a good idea to read that law closely. May be they forget to point what *exactly* static IP should be provided to each contract. If yes - then assigning a static *IPv6* address and NATed private IPv4 is legal enough ;) 27.07.12 13:33, Paolo Di Francesco написав(ла):
We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed (Hell, even multilevel NAT....)
As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" with is quite long to explain.
But the law says "one contract = one public IP".
Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;)
desperate for ipv4 much? anyone that wants to rent some of our PA space is perfectly free to contact us btw... (its not like we cannot assign it to other lirs or their related companies as a customer lol ;) EUR 750/mo per /24 should be just fine, then you get to announce it on your own infrastructure and we take it out of ours. payment condition: per 3 months in advance, 19% vat applies where applicable. (that's only 3 euros per ip per month ;) (just that its listed on everything that spamhaus blackmail operation has in terms of shitlists, but hey, if you feel like it, you can sort it out with them.. (we don't talk to that idiot ;) or just report them to the met police and ICO again for conspiracy to defraud and the uk computer sabotage act (after all that's what it is they're doing ;) just contact sales@cb3rob.net and we'll do what lirs are supposed to do. (assigining it to customers... not keeping it to themselves ;) On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Max Tulyev wrote:
It is a good idea to read that law closely. May be they forget to point what *exactly* static IP should be provided to each contract. If yes - then assigning a static *IPv6* address and NATed private IPv4 is legal enough ;)
27.07.12 13:33, Paolo Di Francesco написав(ла):
We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed (Hell, even multilevel NAT....)
As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" with is quite long to explain.
But the law says "one contract = one public IP".
Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;)
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi Max they say IP not IPv4 or IPv6 so IPv6 is a valid techinque, but you know then if you are "pure public IPv6 address " you still have the problem of reaching IPv4 content on the network. To solve this issue I suggested another point of view which starts from some assumptions: the ITalian traffic is mostly on-net traffic. The assumption can be wrong but most of the traffic (in terms of bytes) comes from: 1) google/youtube/facebook OTT traffic: afaik they natively support IPv6 and usually they are located in Italy (as well as other countries) 2) peer2peer traffic and most of that traffic is done on Italian content (we do not speak english so most of users search for Italian content, which most probably stays on net) 3) content providers: they are Italian content providers (most of them are the same big telcos) Now, my assumption is that if tomorrow morning we wake up and we have: a) end user dual stack (so the stack can decide if it goes on IPv6 or IPv4) b) ITALIAN content providers with dual stack then I think we could easily jump from the current 1-5% to 60% or more of the Italian IPv6 bytes (my personal opinion). The problem stays with the rest of 40% or less of the traffic but in any case the proposed NAT and no IPv6 transition mechanism does not sound like a good idea to me Regards, Paolo
It is a good idea to read that law closely. May be they forget to point what *exactly* static IP should be provided to each contract. If yes - then assigning a static *IPv6* address and NATed private IPv4 is legal enough ;)
27.07.12 13:33, Paolo Di Francesco написав(ла):
We had a static IP - I also had a phoneline and Internet from WIND (Or Telecom Italia) under another contract which had *no* IP and was NATed (Hell, even multilevel NAT....)
As I said, it's a national law against terrorism. Yes you can do some form of NAT (afaik Fastweb does it) but you must do a "one customer NAT" with is quite long to explain.
But the law says "one contract = one public IP".
Long story anyway I can explain in private if you are curious ;)
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
At risk of giving away state secrets, some of UK Gov’s 51/8 is indeed used, just that you can’t see it. I don’t believe that membership charging scheme should be influenced in any way by the “IPv4 conservationists”. Member fees are for member services, and nothing else. Yes, the bigger players should contribute *slightly* more, so we can keep the fees competitive for new entrants (more members = better for everyone), and there can be ways to “encourage” fair play. Now let’s hear no more of this “charge-per-IP” nonsense… Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 0844 225 2888 Mob: 07795 840385 Jamie.Stallwood@imerja.com <mailto:Jamie.Stallwood@imerja.com> NIC Handle: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE *Personal opinion disclaimer goes here* From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 27 July 2012 00:12 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Cc: Nigel Titley Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region Dear Members, Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs. <snip> Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. a) For free (legacy). b) This network doesn't have any routes. <snip> It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it. <snip> -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.
I don’t believe that membership charging scheme should be influenced in any way by the “IPv4 conservationists”. Member fees are for member services, and nothing else. Yes, the bigger players should contribute *slightly* more, so we can keep the fees competitive for new entrants (more members = better for everyone), and there can be ways to “encourage” fair play.
Now let’s hear no more of this “charge-per-IP” nonsense…
Great organization, great ip resources, great income... Well, let's for commercial and not commercial organizations with ip addresses up to 1000-2000 for example will not charge a fee. If you need more than 1000-2000 ip addresses, you understand and ready to pay, otherwise you will save you ip resources with strategies nat translation and port forwarding.
Kind regards
Jamie Stallwood
Jamie Stallwood
Security Specialist
Imerja Limited
Tel: 0844 225 2888
Mob: 07795 840385
Jamie.Stallwood@imerja.com <mailto:Jamie.Stallwood@imerja.com>
NIC Handle: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE
*Personal opinion disclaimer goes here*
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 27 July 2012 00:12 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Cc: Nigel Titley Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
Dear Members,
Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs.
<snip>
Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. a) For free (legacy). b) This network doesn't have any routes.
<snip> It is just a small amount of problems which we have right now. We have a lot of free IPs, but we don't use them. /8 for 50 EUR? This is cost of current (and new) charging schemes. How to get free IPs back to RIPE? Just charge some money for each IP. Thats all. If customer don't need IP - he will return back to RIPE and may be we will get 3-5 /8 back to RIPE which we can distribute between members who realy need it.
<snip>
--
Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com
Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG
Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527
This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.
-- Alexandr Gurbo
I totally agree. The current rules - what made by us (members) makes even difficulty (maybe impossible) for the providers to get new IPv4 resources. On the other side, many of big providers/organisations have so much unused IPv4 resource, and even wasting them. For example a big local player gives a /24 for a leased line customer who really needs only fragment ( max of /26). Since we (the small and big players) have one vote per membership, i would to think of changing the rules, on making available of take back the unused resources. Also, the PI allocation should count to the members PA allocation together. Another thing on IPv4: if there is not so much pressure on big providers for changing their access (DSL, cable) networks to IPv6 (because the already have allocated but unassigned space) they will not move quickly. If they must, they will (i bet). If they can save money on giving back IPv4 pools and change to IPv6 (and maybe do NAT for users who not (software)upgrade their CPE to IPv6 compatible) - they can allocate those money for workhours and NAT devices. The resources what got back from those pools, can go back for re-allocation or servers side (so they will not ask also for it). That is my 2 cent. I hope at least smaller operators agree.
I don’t believe that membership charging scheme should be influenced in any way by the “IPv4 conservationists”. Member fees are for member services, and nothing else. Yes, the bigger players should contribute *slightly* more, so we can keep the fees competitive for new entrants (more members = better for everyone), and there can be ways to “encourage” fair play. Now let’s hear no more of this “charge-per-IP” nonsense… Great organization, great ip resources, great income... Well, let's for commercial and not commercial organizations with ip addresses up to 1000-2000 for example will not charge a fee. If you need more than 1000-2000 ip addresses, you understand and ready to pay, otherwise you will save you ip resources with strategies nat translation and port forwarding.
-- Üdvözlettel, Best Regards, ]=============================.signature===================[ Ifj. Varasdy Imre Microsystem-Kecskemet Kft. Wire:36 76 505 910 Wireless Internet Service Division
Hi, On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 03:11:45AM +0400, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs.
Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Hewlett-Packard Company.
This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either)
Case 2. Inetnum: 53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Daimler AG.
This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either)
Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK
This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either)
Case 4. Inetnum:151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). EARLY-REGISTRATION. WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. a) For free (legacy).
This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme. (And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either) (Are you starting to see a pattern?) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
there is ofcourse an option to have some people that are desperate for ipv4 group up, approach those companies (that american insurance company which holds a /8 as well) and just pay them to manage their ranges (that is, turn them into a profit for the holders and everyone involved). outside of the ripe ncc. just start an external organisation that just rents (flat-fee) or buys those ranges from the original holders, then pimps them out to its members. quite sure mercedes benz doesn't need a /8 themselves :P (daimler ag is their old name btw - they didn't even change it when they renamed it back to mercedes benz ag ;) as corporations seem to like 'whatever makes them money without much work' most of them will probably take the offer. On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 03:11:45AM +0400, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Here is some examples why current charging scheme and new draft is not so good for Members and why we have to move to charging scheme based on count of used IPs.
Case 1. Inetnum: 15.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Hewlett-Packard Company.
This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme.
(And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either)
Case 2. Inetnum: 53.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). ASSIGNED PI. Daimler AG.
This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme.
(And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either)
Case 3. Inetnum: 51.0.0.0/8 (16 777 216 IPs ). EARLY-REGISTRATION. UK
This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme.
(And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either)
Case 4. Inetnum:151.3.0.0 - 151.84.255.255 ( 5 373 952 IPs). EARLY-REGISTRATION. WIND Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. a) For free (legacy).
This was not handed out by the RIPE NCC, so is completely irrelevant for any discussions about the RIPE NCC charging scheme.
(And it's not covered by RIPE address policies either)
(Are you starting to see a pattern?)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Members, Do you know that: - Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA space. - Top 20 LIRs pay (membership fee) 0,6% of Total Income. - 88% of LIRs use only 10% Allocated PA space. Pareto principle works in our case excellent! Companies which use 3-5 millions Allocated PA addresses pay only 5500 EUR to RIPE. Small LIRs which have 2048 Allocated PA addresses pay 1300 EUR. As per current situation RIPE has: - ALLOCATED PA. 18K subnets which are 578 millions IPs. - ASSIGNED PI. 31K subnets which are 110 millions IPs. - EARLY-REGISTRATION. 3K subnets which are 97 millions IPs I’ve made all the necessary calculations and suggest the following proposals/thesises for future Charging Scheme: 1. All PI networks must have sponsoring LIR. 2. It is necessary to calculate the size of LIR by the total count of used PA space and sponsorised PI. As I said about 30% of whole allocated PA space (176 mln PA IPs) use only Top 20 LIRs. Let name them as Group 1. So these LIRs in Group 1 should pay according to the count of used IPs. According to their size they would have discount (amount of payment should be divided into 5). The next Group 2 of LIRs (from 31% to 60% after top) – it is about 80 other LIRs. Their payment amount will be counted equivalent to each other because they use approximately the same amount of resources (like arithmetic average). Their discount would be as payment amount divided into 4. The next Group 3 of LIRs (from 61% to 80%) – it is about 245 LIRs. They are counted as previous Group 3 but discount is dividing of payment into 3. Group 4 – it is 583 LIRs. Discount – into 2. Calculation – the same. Group 5 – it is about 6844 LIRs. No discount. Calculation – the same. So the total cost of member it is a sum of payment for Internet Resources (PA, PI) + fixed fee which is 950€. 950€ will stimulate people for IPv6 using. Also this fee includes costs for trainings, meetings and /24 IPv4 for new LIR. See below payment amount for PA space for each member of Group: Group 1: Cost from 70k€ to 280k€. Group 2: Cost from 16k€ to 77k€. Group 3: Cost from 5k€ to 22k€. Group 4: Cost from 2,4k€ to 7k€. Group 5: Cost from 1k€ to 3,8k€. Also you will see some overlaps here (like 77k and 70k; 22k and 16k etc.). This is because of discounts (see above). And after my full analyzing I consider that it is better for RIPE NCC to stay a non-profit organization. If this Charging Scheme will look like taxable one then we will divide amount members not in just five Groups but in more amount of them (something like ten or so). In this case all members within one Group will pay the same fee. In total the whole sum of payments of LIR will be equivalent of annual Budget of RIPE NCC. -- Best regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
Hi Alexey, With all do respect for your effort, but this is not making anything easier than the current charging scheme AND it is still assigned resource based. We all know that a minority of the larger LIR’s have a large sum of the current allocated space. But that doesn’t mean that they should also be charged like that according to it. If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE’s) of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE NCC, like any other support contract you have. Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for free. Based on historic assigned IP’s is not the way imho. Regards, Erik Bais From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: maandag 30 juli 2012 11:01 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Cc: Nigel Titley Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA, 88% of LIRs use 10% Allocated PA. Dear Members, Do you know that: - Top 20 LIRs use 33% Allocated PA space. - Top 20 LIRs pay (membership fee) 0,6% of Total Income. - 88% of LIRs use only 10% Allocated PA space. Pareto principle works in our case excellent! Companies which use 3-5 millions Allocated PA addresses pay only 5500 EUR to RIPE. Small LIRs which have 2048 Allocated PA addresses pay 1300 EUR. As per current situation RIPE has: - ALLOCATED PA. 18K subnets which are 578 millions IPs. - ASSIGNED PI. 31K subnets which are 110 millions IPs. - EARLY-REGISTRATION. 3K subnets which are 97 millions IPs I’ve made all the necessary calculations and suggest the following proposals/thesises for future Charging Scheme: 1. All PI networks must have sponsoring LIR. 2. It is necessary to calculate the size of LIR by the total count of used PA space and sponsorised PI. As I said about 30% of whole allocated PA space (176 mln PA IPs) use only Top 20 LIRs. Let name them as Group 1. So these LIRs in Group 1 should pay according to the count of used IPs. According to their size they would have discount (amount of payment should be divided into 5). The next Group 2 of LIRs (from 31% to 60% after top) – it is about 80 other LIRs. Their payment amount will be counted equivalent to each other because they use approximately the same amount of resources (like arithmetic average). Their discount would be as payment amount divided into 4. The next Group 3 of LIRs (from 61% to 80%) – it is about 245 LIRs. They are counted as previous Group 3 but discount is dividing of payment into 3. Group 4 – it is 583 LIRs. Discount – into 2. Calculation – the same. Group 5 – it is about 6844 LIRs. No discount. Calculation – the same. So the total cost of member it is a sum of payment for Internet Resources (PA, PI) + fixed fee which is 950€. 950€ will stimulate people for IPv6 using. Also this fee includes costs for trainings, meetings and /24 IPv4 for new LIR. See below payment amount for PA space for each member of Group: Group 1: Cost from 70k€ to 280k€. Group 2: Cost from 16k€ to 77k€. Group 3: Cost from 5k€ to 22k€. Group 4: Cost from 2,4k€ to 7k€. Group 5: Cost from 1k€ to 3,8k€. Also you will see some overlaps here (like 77k and 70k; 22k and 16k etc.). This is because of discounts (see above). And after my full analyzing I consider that it is better for RIPE NCC to stay a non-profit organization. If this Charging Scheme will look like taxable one then we will divide amount members not in just five Groups but in more amount of them (something like ten or so). In this case all members within one Group will pay the same fee. In total the whole sum of payments of LIR will be equivalent of annual Budget of RIPE NCC. -- Best regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
Dear Erik, With all do respect for your effort, but this is not making anything easier than the current charging scheme AND it is still assigned resource based. If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE’s) of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE NCC, like any other support contract you have. Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for free. What is main value which RIPE? Assign IPs? Or provide Support? Of course both are very important. But Support - it is a way how to get resource. Regards IPv6 we can charge LIR, for example, 750 EUR for each additional IPv6 network /32. So in this way we don't need support for assigning IP addresses. What do you think? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
It is incredible how misleading can be people when does not want to pay. And more they consume, less want to pay. If you consume water, you don't pay support ticket, you pay liters of water. IPs, PI, PA, AS are public resources, and usage of public resources must be paid, proportionally to usage. Less availability there is (like IP v4 addresses), the most you pay. Most of big operators ask to end users something like 6 EUR/month for each public IP, so I don't understand they must have those IP for free. Regards, Tonino Il 30/07/2012 11:43, LeaderTelecom Ltd. ha scritto:
Dear Erik,
With all do respect for your effort, but this is not making anything easier than the current charging scheme AND it is still assigned resource based. If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE’s) of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE NCC, like any other support contract you have. Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for free.
What is main value which RIPE? Assign IPs? Or provide Support? Of course both are very important. But Support - it is a way how to get resource. Regards IPv6 we can charge LIR, for example, 750 EUR for each additional IPv6 network /32. So in this way we don't need support for assigning IP addresses.
What do you think?
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On 30/07/2012, at 12.33, LIR <lir@lanto.it> wrote:
It is incredible how misleading can be people when does not want to pay. And more they consume, less want to pay. What are they consuming, be specific and relate to the budgets for RIPE - RIPE has cost, what is the cost of running RIPE.
If you consume water, you don't pay support ticket, you pay liters of water.
Does not apply, RIPE is not selling water.
IPs, PI, PA, AS are public resources, and usage of public resources must be paid, proportionally to usage. Less availability there is (like IP v4 addresses), the most you pay.
and by extension those with 32-bit ASN must pay double? sorry couldn't resist. The rest is serious though. Every time we have this talk people spin out of control. The only way to cut this up, is to go through budget and consider what resources are being spent in RIPE. And certainly IPs are NOT, and SHOULD NOT be thought as something you can pay for. IF we go this route will will end up having a radically different internet, as the big bucks will rule the networks - and only money will rule. Getting a large chunk of IPs is possible if you obey the rules and you get them not because you pay a lot of money. Yes, you MIGHT have a business plan for connecting this, and it costs money. Hopefully those with big chunks overall benefit the internet and makes it possible for others to create content, create services etc. Note also that these big ISPs also have more incentive and spends more on fighting malware, educating users. Not that all ISPs are good (or bad, because there will also be some that MAXIMIZE their own profit) - but without IPs or if they have to pay according to IPs - every year. The public internet will split up in AOL-like clouds, using RFC1918, etc. (Some years ago AOL was kind of like an internet, just not really)
Most of big operators ask to end users something like 6 EUR/month for each public IP, so I don't understand they must have those IP for free.
PLEASE dont Today as IPv4 is getting scarce we are seeing operators charge even MORE for "public IPs" - which hurt end-to-end and all our protocols badly, and yes multiple layers of NAT is really bad - trust me, or try it. Getting a public IP should IMHO be free for all, in any part of the world - period! IF you charge from RIPE by IPs, or some mumbo-jumbo algorithms calculating the "fair amount" it WILL make more ISPs charge for public IPs. My goal is to keep the internet running without as much control, not as much detail-oriented accounting, not having CFOs going through my IP database again and again to shave off payments to RIPE. The current model suits me, and you are of course welcome to discuss, but can we please try to move the discussion along - repeating the same "large ISPs must pay according to IPs OWNED"-talk is getting very tedious, and it seems there is a lot of objection to using that model. After all I guess we are all techs, and not bean-counters? so work creatively, move the world forward instead, thanks. Best regards Henrik
Regards,
Tonino
Il 30/07/2012 11:43, LeaderTelecom Ltd. ha scritto:
Dear Erik,
With all do respect for your effort, but this is not making anything easier than the current charging scheme AND it is still assigned resource based. If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE’s) of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE NCC, like any other support contract you have. Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for free.
What is main value which RIPE? Assign IPs? Or provide Support? Of course both are very important. But Support - it is a way how to get resource. Regards IPv6 we can charge LIR, for example, 750 EUR for each additional IPv6 network /32. So in this way we don't need support for assigning IP addresses.
What do you think?
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Henrik Lund Kramshøj, Follower of the Great Way of Unix hlk@kramse.org hlk@solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler
If you consume water, you don't pay support ticket, you pay liters of water.
Depends on where you live - that's not the case in all locations or all countries - in the UK most people pay a flat *minimal* fee for their water (mine is £114/year) no matter how much you "consume"
IPs, PI, PA, AS are public resources
In your opinion.
Most of big operators ask to end users something like
Connectivity is not the only valid use of IP addresses, all those things you're connecting *to* need them - your "under construction" webpage is on a machine with an ip ... The post office don’t charge for a postcode (necessary to deliver your mail in most countries) and the is a finite number of those - they make their money to pay for the database management of postcode through other services which are *optional*. Rob
On Jul 30, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Erik Bais wrote:
If you want to have a charging scheme based on used resources (FTE’s) of the NCC, go for a base fee with a charge per ticket at the RIPE NCC, like any other support contract you have. Either Pay per ticket or pay a larger fee upfront and have X calls for free.
You miss the main point: - If all resources were "unlimited" the entire RIPE activity could be automated and the costs taken close to zero, to give an example the number of level2 domains you can have under a TLD is basically unlimited, and in fact you pay $6/year for a domain - The reason why RIPE needs to exist and do its (outstanding, IMO) work is that there are limited resources, policies to be enforced, assessments to be done, misuse to be prevented: all this is because the resources are limited. I do not need RIPE to process a ticket (give me the power to write directly in the database and I will), I need RIPE to prevent LIRs to abuse exhaustible resources. Thus the real reason why needs to work is because exhaustible resources are about to exhaust. The time required to process an allocation is not due to the one asking for the allocation, is due to the fact that the possible allocations are limited, and thus is MOSTLY due to the resources already allocated to others. A.
participants (25)
-
Alexandr Gurbo -
Andrea Cocito -
Carlos Friacas -
Erik Bais -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Havard Eidnes -
Henrik Kramshøj Solido NOC abuse -
Jamie Stallwood -
Kurt Jaeger -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
LIR -
Mark Jones (MK) -
Max Tulyev -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Paolo Di Francesco -
Rob Golding -
Sascha Luck -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
Thomas Mangin -
Tomas Hlavacek -
Varasdy Imre Csaba -
William Weber