Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
Coming back to the points of RIPE NCC being non-profit, it could also start spending more money to improve the services that it provides. The "About us" page tells us that RIPE NCC works with Internet Governance and External Relations and Outreach. RIPE NCC could sure use more money and resources to engage further with regards to these topics. For example, RIPE NCC engages in Roundtable Meetings for governments,
Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent from their current (or future) IP service providers. Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-( In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders, and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space our your own PA space... ;-)
regulators and law enforcement agencies and could use these forums to educate these bodies about the importance of safeguarding an open and neutral internet without any artificial hurdles such as zero-rating. blocking of content etc.
Regards, Carlos (pt.rccn)
On 22/09/16 20:58, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Coming back to the points of RIPE NCC being non-profit, it could also start spending more money to improve the services that it provides. The "About us" page tells us that RIPE NCC works with Internet Governance and External Relations and Outreach. RIPE NCC could sure use more money and resources to engage further with regards to these topics. For example, RIPE NCC engages in Roundtable Meetings for governments,
Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent from their current (or future) IP service providers.
Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-(
In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders, and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space our your own PA space... ;-)
More backwards thinking. Those Governments should have pushed for a migration to IPv6 instead of looking for small crumbs and acting as a forerunner. Then use the crumbs for NATPT bridging them to the parts of the Internet, that don't use v6 yet. It would also pushed the suppliers in the right direction then. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Hi Martin, All, On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On 22/09/16 20:58, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent from their current (or future) IP service providers.
Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-(
In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders, and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space our your own PA space... ;-)
More backwards thinking.
Nahhhhh, just a glimpse of local, daily, reality. :-))
Those Governments should have pushed for a migration to IPv6 instead of looking for small crumbs and acting as a forerunner.
At some extent, several governments over the years have funded sectorial-driven deployments :-)
Then use the crumbs for NATPT bridging them to the parts of the Internet, that don't use v6 yet.
You mean, the large majority... ;-)
It would also pushed the suppliers in the right direction then.
I would say that suppliers aren't being pushed enough, even today... ;-( Regards, Carlos
Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
On 22/09/16 22:51, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Hi Martin, All,
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On 22/09/16 20:58, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent from their current (or future) IP service providers.
Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-(
In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders, and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space our your own PA space... ;-)
More backwards thinking.
Nahhhhh, just a glimpse of local, daily, reality. :-))
I know. But I'm a dreamer.
Those Governments should have pushed for a migration to IPv6 instead of looking for small crumbs and acting as a forerunner.
At some extent, several governments over the years have funded sectorial-driven deployments :-)
Not enough though.
Then use the crumbs for NATPT bridging them to the parts of the Internet, that don't use v6 yet.
You mean, the large majority... ;-)
Oh .. it has gotten a lot better in the last years.
It would also pushed the suppliers in the right direction then.
I would say that suppliers aren't being pushed enough, even today... ;-(
Agreed. And it's the cheap arse end-user suppliers, that are the worse, because they're still in the way, even with the v6 roll-out has been done and automated .. all the way to the end-customer. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Ltd.
Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
-- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
Regarding this discussion, here is my suggestions about what i think that can be done: - Disallow LIRs to profit from IPv4 Transfers. If they aren't using resources, they should return them, not making money of them in a "black market". IPv4 Resources are owned by the community, not by a single LIR. No one should be able to create a market of these. If they're selling, i'm pretty sure they don't need them, because the ones who really need, will not be selling them at any cost. - Start to allocate a minimum of /24 instead of /22 to new LIRs and allow them to get up to /22 in the first two years if they need. (A /24 each 6 months for example) - Start charging by size of IPv4 allocation (setting a minimum and a maximum each year); - Use the excessive money made from Annual Membership Fees to fund IPv6 Workshops, IPv6 implementation in opensource projects and internet protocols, IPv6 Marketing material for ISPs, Datacenters, Webhosting companies, Universities and end-users, etc. - Reduce the Annual Membership Fee, compensate or even pay something to LIRs (using the excessive money - see above) that return their unused Resource Allocations. I'm pretty sure 99% of LIRs who have big unused resource allocations, will not make any move if they don't win something in return. We need to give a boost to IPv6, but we all know that most of the big ISPs have previously been gathering more IPv4 allocations than they needed in order to take advantage of the future limitations that would occur, putting IPv6 implementation in second place. If they start being charged by allocation, they will think about returning resources they aren't using and prioritize implementation of IPv6. In my opinion, as a community member, LIRs should have the allocations they need, not the allocations they want. (Sorry for any grammatical or syntax error.) Best regards, TEOTÓNIO RICARDO: Technical Support & Account Manager @ WebTuga, Lda. blog: blog.webtuga.pt - web: www.webtuga.pt - area de clientes: clientes.webtuga.pt twitter: @webtugahosting - facebook: fb.me/webtugahostingfb WebTuga - Soluções de Alojamento Cloud 2016-09-22 22:51 GMT+01:00 Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt>:
Hi Martin, All,
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On 22/09/16 20:58, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent from their current (or future) IP service providers.
Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-(
In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders, and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space our your own PA space... ;-)
More backwards thinking.
Nahhhhh, just a glimpse of local, daily, reality. :-))
Those Governments should have pushed for a migration to IPv6 instead of
looking for small crumbs and acting as a forerunner.
At some extent, several governments over the years have funded sectorial-driven deployments :-)
Then use the crumbs for NATPT bridging them to the parts of the Internet,
that don't use v6 yet.
You mean, the large majority... ;-)
It would also pushed the suppliers in the right direction then.
I would say that suppliers aren't being pushed enough, even today... ;-(
Regards, Carlos
Kind regards,
Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi there, I have just a small objection to say to the guys that recommend /24 allocations, I saw plenty. Please take a look at the BGP table at this moment[1], it is really fragmented and it did triple it’s size in last 6-7 years. I doubt that there is someone happy about this, and this is only our fault, not RIPE’s or other RIR’s. We voted what we wanted, and not what we needed, and nevertheless we didn’t care about the future. This IPv4 discussions should be closed, and talking about BIG LIRs vs SMALL LIRs is already deprecated, since we all are equal at this moment. My hope is that the next big thing (lets say a new Facebook like app) will be born in Silicon Valley (s/Silicon Valley/any other IOT city/) and it will work on IPv6 only. From that moment IPv4 is dead, long live IPv6. [1] http://bgp.potaroo.net/bgprpts/bgp-active.png On 23 September 2016 at 01:17:14, Teotonio Ricardo (teotonio.ricardo@webtuga.pt) wrote: Regarding this discussion, here is my suggestions about what i think that can be done: - Disallow LIRs to profit from IPv4 Transfers. If they aren't using resources, they should return them, not making money of them in a "black market". IPv4 Resources are owned by the community, not by a single LIR. No one should be able to create a market of these. If they're selling, i'm pretty sure they don't need them, because the ones who really need, will not be selling them at any cost. - Start to allocate a minimum of /24 instead of /22 to new LIRs and allow them to get up to /22 in the first two years if they need. (A /24 each 6 months for example) - Start charging by size of IPv4 allocation (setting a minimum and a maximum each year); - Use the excessive money made from Annual Membership Fees to fund IPv6 Workshops, IPv6 implementation in opensource projects and internet protocols, IPv6 Marketing material for ISPs, Datacenters, Webhosting companies, Universities and end-users, etc. - Reduce the Annual Membership Fee, compensate or even pay something to LIRs (using the excessive money - see above) that return their unused Resource Allocations. I'm pretty sure 99% of LIRs who have big unused resource allocations, will not make any move if they don't win something in return. We need to give a boost to IPv6, but we all know that most of the big ISPs have previously been gathering more IPv4 allocations than they needed in order to take advantage of the future limitations that would occur, putting IPv6 implementation in second place. If they start being charged by allocation, they will think about returning resources they aren't using and prioritize implementation of IPv6. In my opinion, as a community member, LIRs should have the allocations they need, not the allocations they want. (Sorry for any grammatical or syntax error.) Best regards, TEOTÓNIO RICARDO: Technical Support & Account Manager @ WebTuga, Lda. blog: blog.webtuga.pt - web: www.webtuga.pt - area de clientes: clientes.webtuga.pt twitter: @webtugahosting - facebook: fb.me/webtugahostingfb WebTuga - Soluções de Alojamento Cloud
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 11:15:30PM +0100, Teotonio Ricardo wrote:
If they start being charged by allocation, they will think about returning resources they aren't using and prioritize implementation of IPv6. In my opinion, as a community member, LIRs should have the allocations they need, not the allocations they want.
No, the won't they'd get more money by selling them on the open market, than they would be reducing their RIPE fees. RIPE could never justifiably charge more than the IPs were worth on the open market, so no one will ever return them to RIPE. Simon
That’s why i think there shouldn’t exist any IPv4 Transfer market. This should be disallowed by RIPE. If you don’t allow selling IPv4 and charge more for them, LIRs with a big percentage of unused IPv4 Allocations will start to return them and only keep what they really need to maintain their services until they fully migrate to IPv6. TEOTÓNIO RICARDO: Technical Support & Account Manager @ WebTuga, Lda. blog: blog.webtuga.pt - web: www.webtuga.pt - area de clientes: clientes.webtuga.pt twitter: @webtugahosting - facebook: fb.me/webtugahostingfb WebTuga - Soluções de Alojamento Cloud
No dia 23/09/2016, às 00:35, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> escreveu:
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 11:15:30PM +0100, Teotonio Ricardo wrote:
If they start being charged by allocation, they will think about returning resources they aren't using and prioritize implementation of IPv6. In my opinion, as a community member, LIRs should have the allocations they need, not the allocations they want.
No, the won't they'd get more money by selling them on the open market, than they would be reducing their RIPE fees. RIPE could never justifiably charge more than the IPs were worth on the open market, so no one will ever return them to RIPE.
Simon
On Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:31AM +0100, Teot?nio Ricardo wrote:
That???s why i think there shouldn???t exist any IPv4 Transfer market. This should be disallowed by RIPE.
And how do you propose RIPE do this?
If you don???t allow selling IPv4 and charge more for them, LIRs with a big percentage of unused IPv4 Allocations will start to return them and only keep what they really need to maintain their services until they fully migrate to IPv6.
So, entertain me, and lets believe that LIRs will return some IPv4 addresses to RIPE. What do you think will happen then? Suddenly there will be enough IPv4 for everyone that wants some? I've asked this question / made this point several times, as have others. No-one has responded with a reasoned explanation of what they think would happen with all these mysteriously returned IPs that would make more than a drop in the ocean. Meanwhile, the deckchairs that you keep trying to rearrange are floating away... Simon
2016-09-23 0:48 GMT+01:00 Simon Lockhart < s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk>:
On Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:31AM +0100, Teot?nio Ricardo wrote:
That???s why i think there shouldn???t exist any IPv4 Transfer market. This should be disallowed by RIPE.
And how do you propose RIPE do this?
Isn't RIPE the entity who controls IPv4 Allocation transfers? If RIPE wants, no one can transfer Allocation Resources, so there isn't a market.
If you don???t allow selling IPv4 and charge more for them, LIRs with a big percentage of unused IPv4 Allocations will start to return them and only keep what they really need to maintain their services until they fully migrate to IPv6.
So, entertain me, and lets believe that LIRs will return some IPv4 addresses to RIPE. What do you think will happen then? Suddenly there will be enough IPv4 for everyone that wants some?
If LIRs need to pay more for IPv4 Allocation, they will want to reduce costs and speed up IPv6 implementation. Those who don't return their unused IPv4 allocations and don't implement IPv6, will suffer in a near future the consequences. Meanwhile, their higher fees can be used to fund IPv6 implementation initiatives (Workshops, Marketing material, development, etc).
I've asked this question / made this point several times, as have others. No-one has responded with a reasoned explanation of what they think would happen with all these mysteriously returned IPs that would make more than a drop in the ocean.
Meanwhile, the deckchairs that you keep trying to rearrange are floating away...
Simon
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Teotonio Ricardo <teotonio.ricardo@webtuga.pt> wrote:
2016-09-23 0:48 GMT+01:00 Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk>:
On Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:31AM +0100, Teot?nio Ricardo wrote:
That???s why i think there shouldn???t exist any IPv4 Transfer market. This should be disallowed by RIPE.
And how do you propose RIPE do this?
Isn't RIPE the entity who controls IPv4 Allocation transfers? If RIPE wants, no one can transfer Allocation Resources, so there isn't a market.
Here we have a huge misunderstanding, two actual RIPE is at the community where all the policy gets decided, we meet twice a year around the RIPE region. Us here (members-discuss), and in the General Meeting are RIPE NCC members. The second misunderstanding - RIPE NCC is in the "book keeping" business, they have a very good database of who control and use which IP addresses. They are not in the transfer marked to control the marked, they are there to make sure the books are up to date on who use what resources and when/if they change use. The RIPE Database, and one of the most important thing for RIPE NCC (if I remember right) is to make sure that database is correct. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
Hi, Big business can really wait for policies to go again their way... Imho, big business also expects to grow their business, so if they have any surplus, they won't tend to sell it, and risk having to buy the same resources later at a higher cost ;-) "Fully migrate to IPv6" is something tricky, because noone is expecting to really stop using IPv4 anytime soon. Firstly, IPv6 usage needs to become dominant, and then IPv4 usage needs to become residual. When the latter happens, then "migration" might be an appropriate term :-) But while we (together) build a full IPv6 Internet, everyone should know IPv4 operation is still essencial. Regards, Carlos Friaças On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Teotónio Ricardo wrote:
That?s why i think there shouldn?t exist any IPv4 Transfer market. This should be disallowed by RIPE.If you don?t allow selling IPv4 and charge more for them, LIRs with a big percentage of unused IPv4 Allocations will start to return them and only keep what they really need to maintain their services until they fully migrate to IPv6.
TEOTÓNIO RICARDO: Technical Support & Account Manager @ WebTuga, Lda.
blog: blog.webtuga.pt - web: www.webtuga.pt - area de clientes: clientes.webtuga.pt twitter: @webtugahosting - facebook: fb.me/webtugahostingfb
WebTuga - Soluções de Alojamento Cloud
No dia 23/09/2016, às 00:35, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> escreveu:
On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 11:15:30PM +0100, Teotonio Ricardo wrote: If they start being charged by allocation, they will think about returning resources they aren't using and prioritize implementation of IPv6. In my opinion, as a community member, LIRs should have the allocations they need, not the allocations they want.
No, the won't they'd get more money by selling them on the open market, than they would be reducing their RIPE fees. RIPE could never justifiably charge more than the IPs were worth on the open market, so no one will ever return them to RIPE.
Simon
Hi, (happy to see someone else from my country voice their views, even if i don't share them at all) On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Teotonio Ricardo wrote:
Regarding this discussion, here is my suggestions about what i think that can be done:
- Disallow LIRs to profit from IPv4 Transfers. If they aren't using resources, they should return them, not making money of them in a "black market".
Afaik, there isn't a "black market". What RIPE (and the RIPE/NCC) did during the last years was to document the transfers, and list "intermediaries", so that any transfer could be as transparent/traceable as possible. When i started following this community, IP addresses were not "assets", but with the shortage, they have become assets, and nobody could do anything against that.
IPv4 Resources are owned by the community, not by a single LIR.
That's not entirely true. "Legacy" space isn't "owned" by the community.
No one should be able to create a market of these.
National (and regional) authorities usually (sometimes...) have the power to stop the creation of markets, or their development. We as a community... don't have that ability.
If they're selling, i'm pretty sure they don't need them, because the ones who really need, will not be selling them at any cost.
- Start to allocate a minimum of /24 instead of /22 to new LIRs and allow them to get up to /22 in the first two years if they need. (A /24 each 6 months for example)
Deaggregation is already as bad as it is. While a LIR's /22 can be operationally used as 4 /24s, this is a bad idea anyway, because it encourages more deaggregation. We also need to understand that LIRs which are not exposed to the full routing table's size will never worry about deaggregation ;-)
- Start charging by size of IPv4 allocation (setting a minimum and a maximum each year);
Strongly against this. The cost we all support to run the RIPE/NCC is based on the workload the RIPE/NCC needs to handle, not allocation sizes. People don't pay an yearly fee so that global assets are (retroactively) fairly distributed, fees are paid to cover services' cost.
- Use the excessive money made from Annual Membership Fees to fund IPv6 Workshops, IPv6 implementation in opensource projects and internet protocols, IPv6 Marketing material for ISPs, Datacenters, Webhosting companies, Universities and end-users, etc.
Non-service related costs are already high enough :-) At this point we need to recognize what RIPE/NCC (and RIPE who mandated RIPE/NCC to do so) have been doing for more than a decade to promote IPv6 usage.
- Reduce the Annual Membership Fee, compensate or even pay something to LIRs (using the excessive money - see above) that return their unused Resource Allocations. I'm pretty sure 99% of LIRs who have big unused resource allocations, will not make any move if they don't win something in return.
It's a risk issue and a market issue. If you think there is a possibility your business will grow, you will hang on to your assets, because you can't predict their price in the future. Even if you won't have usage for them, you can keep it for some years more and make more money at that point in time...
We need to give a boost to IPv6,
Yes, sure. But we also need to recognize it will happen at different speeds, according to each networks' context.
but we all know that most of the big ISPs have previously been gathering more IPv4 allocations than they needed in order to take advantage of the future limitations that would occur, putting IPv6 implementation in second place.
If big ISPs did that, it's because they did come up with plans in order to get the allocations, or they did went to the market when they thought it was business-wise for them.
If they start being charged by allocation, they will think about returning resources they aren't using and prioritize implementation of IPv6. In my opinion, as a community member, LIRs should have the allocations they need, not the allocations they want.
Seriously, the line was crossed and the "returning resources" concept was dead and buried. Like any buildings/real estate ownership, if you can't support the maintenance cost you sell your estate and minimize your losses, you just don't offer anything to charity/common good... ;-) Best Regards, Carlos Friaças (pt.rccn)
(Sorry for any grammatical or syntax error.)
Best regards, TEOTÓNIO RICARDO: Technical Support & Account Manager @ WebTuga, Lda. blog: blog.webtuga.pt - web: www.webtuga.pt - area de clientes: clientes.webtuga.pt twitter: @webtugahosting - facebook: fb.me/webtugahostingfb WebTuga - Soluções de Alojamento Cloud
2016-09-22 22:51 GMT+01:00 Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt>:
Hi Martin, All,
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On 22/09/16 20:58, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent from their current (or future) IP service providers.
Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-(
In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders, and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space our your own PA space... ;-)
More backwards thinking.
Nahhhhh, just a glimpse of local, daily, reality. :-))
Those Governments should have pushed for a migration to IPv6 instead of looking for small crumbs and acting as a forerunner.
At some extent, several governments over the years have funded sectorial-driven deployments :-)
Then use the crumbs for NATPT bridging them to the parts of the Internet, that don't use v6 yet.
You mean, the large majority... ;-)
It would also pushed the suppliers in the right direction then.
I would say that suppliers aren't being pushed enough, even today... ;-(
Regards, Carlos
Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire Ltd. - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968 Registered Office: Moy, Kinvara, Co. Galway, 091-865 968 - Registered in Ireland No. 508961
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
participants (7)
-
Bogdan-Stefan Rotariu -
Carlos Friacas -
Martin List-Petersen -
Roger Jørgensen -
Simon Lockhart -
Teotonio Ricardo -
Teotónio Ricardo