Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys” or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate. Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk<http://www.nse.co.uk/> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма. -- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а): Hi All, IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is. New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. Regards Ben From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com<http://www.3c1b.com/> info@3c1b.com<mailto:info@3c1b.com> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.” The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hello All, Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit companys (if they really make one is not the point). Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for mandate reasons but also because this would not be neutral. -- William EDIS GmbH Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot:
I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys” or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate.
Simon
Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever".
-- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd
--
При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма.
-- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком"
Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51
URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS
14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а): Hi All,
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is.
New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this.
IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this.
Regards Ben
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Ulf,
As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand.
Have a nice day,
Cenk Keylan
<image001.jpg> 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com info@3c1b.com
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.”
The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC.
Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees).
Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members.
Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Lu,
I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters.
Kind regards,
Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be
KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be)
Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Colleagues:
Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4)
The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well.
So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C)
So make the format simple:
C=(L/R*100%)*TN
Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions.
How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- 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 Thanks for everybody's reply, I didn't expect so many replies:) I think the best solution to solve the problem that large amount of companies holding huge amount of address--is not making Ripe a police force to check everybody's usage, Ripe NCC shouldn't be doing that as well as don't have the autherlization to do so. A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high property taxes are the same reason. If people have to pay to hold, they normally will be more open to discussion the transfer. Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs. With regards. Lu On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, William Weber < ripe-members-discussion@edisglobal.com> wrote:
Hello All,
Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit companys (if they really make one is not the point). Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for mandate reasons but also because this would not be neutral.
-- William EDIS GmbH
Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot:
I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys” or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate.*** * ** ** Simon**** ** ** Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe**** T: 020 3161 6001**** F: 020 3161 6011**** www.nse.co.uk**** ** ** ** ** *From:* members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *LeaderTelecom Ltd. *Sent:* 14 February 2012 11:52 AM *To:* Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees**** ** **
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever".
-- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd**** --
При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма.
-- **** С уважением,**** Алексей Иванов **** Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком"**** **** Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 **** URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign**** URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS****
14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а):**** Hi All,
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is.
New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this.
IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this.
Regards Ben **** *From:* members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Cenk Keylan *Sent:* 14 February 2012 09:57 *To:* Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees****
Hi Ulf,
As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand.
Have a nice day,
Cenk Keylan **** <image001.jpg>**** *3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri***** Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266**** 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye**** Tel**** : +90-312-988-0000**** Direkt**** : +90-312-988-1015**** Faks**** : +90-312-241-2888**** http://www.3c1b.com**** info@3c1b.com****
**** *From:* members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Ulf Kieber *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees****
Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.”
The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC.****
Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees).
Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members.
Best regards, *Ulf Kieber* Head of NOC green.ch AG**** **** *From:* members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *KOSMOZZ - Info *Sent:* Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 *To:* Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees****
Hi Lu,
I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters.
Kind regards,
Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be
*KOS**MOZZ* -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be)
*Van:* members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *Namens *Lu Heng *Verzonden:* maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 *Aan:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Onderwerp:* [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Colleagues:**** **** Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4)**** **** The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well.**** **** So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C)**** **** So make the format simple:**** **** C=(L/R*100%)*TN**** **** Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions.**** **** How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought.**** **** -- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.**** ---- 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.
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:05:47PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs.
There are more IP addresses available than anyone can ever use. (Or are you still using IPv4?) 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
Hi On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:05:47PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs.
There are more IP addresses available than anyone can ever use.
(Or are you still using IPv4?)
Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons.
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
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons.
Now this was a credible excuse in 2002. If you're still using it in 2012, you need a new excuse-book. 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
Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons.
Why? You mean that you need investment in new equipment? Or any other reason? -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401002131] в теме письма. -- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 URL: [1]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: [2]http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: [3]http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS 14.02.2012 18:21 - Lu Heng написал(а): Hi On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Gert Doering <[4]gert@space.net> wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:05:47PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs. There are more IP addresses available than anyone can ever use.
(Or are you still using IPv4?) Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons. 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: [5]+49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. [1] http://www.InstantSSL.su/ [2] http://verisign.su/ [3] http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ [4] mailto:gert@space.net [5] tel:%2B49%20%2889%29%2032356-444
Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons. Really? Even phones support IPv6 these days, and even stone old switches and routers can do v6 (if even only in software - but they can, and even with a usable performance). That excuse is really old and can't be used anymore today.
William -- EDIS GmbH // Austria Am 14.02.2012 um 15:54 schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.:
Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons.
Why? You mean that you need investment in new equipment? Or any other reason?
-- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd.
--
При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401002131] в теме письма.
-- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком"
Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51
URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS
14.02.2012 18:21 - Lu Heng написал(а): Hi
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:05:47PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs.
There are more IP addresses available than anyone can ever use.
(Or are you still using IPv4?)
Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons.
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
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- 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 14/02/2012, at 15.05, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi
Thanks for everybody's reply, I didn't expect so many replies:) It is always interesting to hear from people with different perspectives
I don't respond much, and please don't flame me - even though I try to cut down on discussions, that IMHO are futile. Getting "great ideas" on a whim is often not what happens, getting ideas that might seem great on a whim happens more often ;-) No offense intended
I think the best solution to solve the problem that large amount of companies holding huge amount of address--is not making Ripe a police force to check everybody's usage, Ripe NCC shouldn't be doing that as well as don't have the autherlization to do so.
A huge waste of time, lets rather consume the rest - <bold> the available space in IPv4 with all addresses would not allow for future growth! </bold> Burn, burn, burn! Move to IPv6, relax, drink beer, tea, coffee, what you prefer.
A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high property taxes are the same reason.
I am not even going to join these discussions anymore, I think it is a waste of time to think about new ways to slice the cake, when it is gone already! People still talking about price per IP for ANYTHING (even security testing which we do!) are nuts, sorry - please don't be offended, but you are waisting precious time and resources discussing this. and worse having bean-counters designing a "fair proposal" certainly will end up dividing address space in sub-optimal chunks, and I would predict this could endanger the internet even more than PIPA/SOPA/ACTA etc.
If people have to pay to hold, they normally will be more open to discussion the transfer.
Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs.
What we need is incentive, and the best incentive is connectivity, make IPv6 the default, make it simple, make it fast, ... it already makes doing addressing plans much easier - "how big a subnet do we allocate"-questions are gone. and to stuff like "our software/hardware/people don't understand IPv6", sorry - if people are not staying informed about important "news" discussed since the middle of the 1990s - whose fault is that? People that have dug themselves into a hole, can keep the hole ... Hey, in the best case we will have some stagnant ISP die, great :-) Best regards Henrik
With regards.
Lu
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, William Weber <ripe-members-discussion@edisglobal.com> wrote: Hello All,
Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit companys (if they really make one is not the point). Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for mandate reasons but also because this would not be neutral.
-- William EDIS GmbH
Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot:
I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys” or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate.
Simon
Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever".
-- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd
--
При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма.
-- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком"
Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51
URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS
14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а): Hi All,
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is.
New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this.
IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this.
Regards Ben
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Ulf,
As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand.
Have a nice day,
Cenk Keylan
<image001.jpg> 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com info@3c1b.com
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.”
The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC.
Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees).
Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members.
Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Lu,
I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters.
Kind regards,
Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be
KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be)
Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Colleagues:
Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4)
The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well.
So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C)
So make the format simple:
C=(L/R*100%)*TN
Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions.
How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- 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.
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- 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 CEH http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler
Hi Henrik: Thanks for your reply. In theory, you are absolute right, we really should forgot the IPv4 and move to the IPv6 now. I personally really like to see it happen even just tomorrow. However, in real world, we as a small company don't have control of situation. I can not tell you what business we really in, but what I can tell is, it is really not up to us if we want to throw IPv4 into the trash bin. I believe it is goes the same for most people here, internet is inter-connected, nobody can move to IPv6 alone, we need each other to move forward to it. So at least for the moment and the forcastable future, we will still in need of IPv4, so as many of other colleagues. With regards. Lu On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Henrik Kramshøj Solido NOC abuse < noc@solido.net> wrote:
On 14/02/2012, at 15.05, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi
Thanks for everybody's reply, I didn't expect so many replies:) It is always interesting to hear from people with different perspectives
I don't respond much, and please don't flame me - even though I try to cut down on discussions, that IMHO are futile.
Getting "great ideas" on a whim is often not what happens, getting ideas that might seem great on a whim happens more often ;-) No offense intended
I think the best solution to solve the problem that large amount of
companies holding huge amount of address--is not making Ripe a police force to check everybody's usage, Ripe NCC shouldn't be doing that as well as don't have the autherlization to do so.
A huge waste of time, lets rather consume the rest - <bold> the available space in IPv4 with all addresses would not allow for future growth! </bold>
Burn, burn, burn! Move to IPv6, relax, drink beer, tea, coffee, what you prefer.
A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to
pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high property taxes are the same reason.
I am not even going to join these discussions anymore, I think it is a waste of time to think about new ways to slice the cake, when it is gone already!
People still talking about price per IP for ANYTHING (even security testing which we do!) are nuts, sorry - please don't be offended, but you are waisting precious time and resources discussing this.
and worse having bean-counters designing a "fair proposal" certainly will end up dividing address space in sub-optimal chunks, and I would predict this could endanger the internet even more than PIPA/SOPA/ACTA etc.
If people have to pay to hold, they normally will be more open to
discussion the transfer.
Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as
well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs.
What we need is incentive, and the best incentive is connectivity, make IPv6 the default, make it simple, make it fast, ...
it already makes doing addressing plans much easier - "how big a subnet do we allocate"-questions are gone.
and to stuff like "our software/hardware/people don't understand IPv6", sorry - if people are not staying informed about important "news" discussed since the middle of the 1990s - whose fault is that? People that have dug themselves into a hole, can keep the hole ...
Hey, in the best case we will have some stagnant ISP die, great :-)
Best regards
Henrik
With regards.
Lu
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, William Weber < ripe-members-discussion@edisglobal.com> wrote: Hello All,
Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit companys (if they really make one is not the point). Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for mandate reasons but also because this would not be neutral.
-- William EDIS GmbH
Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot:
I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys” or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate.
Simon
Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever".
-- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd
--
При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма.
-- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком"
Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51
URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS
14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а): Hi All,
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is.
New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this.
IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this.
Regards Ben
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Ulf,
As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand.
Have a nice day,
Cenk Keylan
<image001.jpg> 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com info@3c1b.com
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.”
The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC.
Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees).
Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members.
Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG
From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Lu,
I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters.
Kind regards,
Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be
KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be)
Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
Hi Colleagues:
Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4)
The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well.
So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C)
So make the format simple:
C=(L/R*100%)*TN
Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions.
How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- 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.
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. ---- 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 CEH http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler
---- 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.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On 14/02/2012, at 19.05, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi Henrik: Hi All
Thanks for your reply.
In theory, you are absolute right, we really should forgot the IPv4 and move to the IPv6 now.
Theory is practice now, don't ignore it
I personally really like to see it happen even just tomorrow.
However, in real world, we as a small company don't have control of situation.
Neither have I, I decided actually that we should become LIR (dk.solidonetworks) just recently.
I can not tell you what business we really in, but what I can tell is, it is really not up to us if we want to throw IPv4 into the trash bin.
I believe it is goes the same for most people here, internet is inter-connected, nobody can move to IPv6 alone, we need each other to move forward to it.
So at least for the moment and the forcastable future, we will still in need of IPv4, so as many of other colleagues.
Not really, what we NEED is IPv6 - IPv4 will just hang around more and more, until it gets to annoying. Nobody NEEDS IPv4, perhaps they need to LIVE WITH IPv4 for some time. its like saying you NEED wired Ethernet to be on the internet IPv4 is not NEED, we have had IPv4 for lots of years, we have tools for browsing the internet through proxies etc. and the 90% percent of what people do and use, most "regular internet users" are using very few resources - like facebook, youtube, gmail, linkedin etc. The main sites and services are rapidly moving to IPv6, Akamai for instance just days ago said on twitter #v6World - Christian Kaufmann #Akamai: We now have 954 #IPv6 BGP sessions, over 1/4 of total #IPv4 sessions. Mobile devices are taking over the internet, more devices will be mobile than cabled, so IF your business depends on some obscure hardware devices that does not support IPv6 - like various DSL devices in Denmark for instance, they are DYING and DYING fast. I hope the best for you and your business plans, I cannot fathom though what business REQUIRES IPv4 for the foreseeable future - but my guess - it will DIE and be replaced by companies that understand the need for connectivity with the rest of the world - you know, IPv6 ;-) Best regards Henrik PS I wrote my thesis about IPv6 at diku.dk in 2002 and did my first ping6 on AIX in the 1990s. So yes, I am quite biased towards IPv6 :-) PPS I have also been in Africa and even though they ran oooold Windows versions they were further into the future with 3G data etc. Do NOT make the assumption that hardware will not be replaced if it does not live up to user expectations anymore. -- Henrik Lund Kramshøj, Follower of the Great Way of Unix hlk@kramse.org hlk@solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler
So at least for the moment and the forcastable future, we will still in need of IPv4, so as many of other colleagues. Not really, what we NEED is IPv6 - IPv4 will just hang around more and more, until it gets to annoying. Nobody NEEDS IPv4, perhaps they need to LIVE WITH IPv4 for some time. its like saying you NEED wired Ethernet to be on the internet
well we -need- ipv4 to work untill google, facebook and youtube (as well as anyone else that chooses to remain relevant ;) have AAAA records on their normal www entries... after that, we no longer care for ipv4... basically... and i believe they all want to make the final move in june this year and turn it on permanently, so after that, bye bye ipv4... if ppl don't migrate their stuff, that's their problem, main priority for eyeball networks: google, facebook, twitter, etc works, if "thegrocerystoreonthecorner.co.uk' doesn't work, too bad. so yes, google, do your thing..
Strange situation. If IPv4 is dead, not important, to be forgotten soon, which is the problem to pay more if you use a lot of IPv4 resources? For sure is not your problem, as all of you is going to leave IPv4. So, please, make a reasonable pricing based on fixed fee + usage of every resource. More resource you use (IPv6, IPv4, IPv7, IPv8) more you pay. Exactly like water, gas, trash, etc. I agree on a base fee around 800-1.000 EUR, adding costs of consumed resources (new entries pay the same as old entries). Regards, Tonino Il 14/02/2012 19:45, Henrik Kramshøj Solido NOC abuse ha scritto:
On 14/02/2012, at 19.05, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi Henrik: Hi All
Thanks for your reply.
In theory, you are absolute right, we really should forgot the IPv4 and move to the IPv6 now. Theory is practice now, don't ignore it I personally really like to see it happen even just tomorrow.
However, in real world, we as a small company don't have control of situation. Neither have I, I decided actually that we should become LIR (dk.solidonetworks) just recently.
I can not tell you what business we really in, but what I can tell is, it is really not up to us if we want to throw IPv4 into the trash bin.
I believe it is goes the same for most people here, internet is inter-connected, nobody can move to IPv6 alone, we need each other to move forward to it.
So at least for the moment and the forcastable future, we will still in need of IPv4, so as many of other colleagues. Not really, what we NEED is IPv6 - IPv4 will just hang around more and more, until it gets to annoying. Nobody NEEDS IPv4, perhaps they need to LIVE WITH IPv4 for some time. its like saying you NEED wired Ethernet to be on the internet
IPv4 is not NEED, we have had IPv4 for lots of years, we have tools for browsing the internet through proxies etc. and the 90% percent of what people do and use, most "regular internet users" are using very few resources - like facebook, youtube, gmail, linkedin etc.
The main sites and services are rapidly moving to IPv6, Akamai for instance just days ago said on twitter #v6World - Christian Kaufmann #Akamai: We now have 954 #IPv6 BGP sessions, over 1/4 of total #IPv4 sessions.
Mobile devices are taking over the internet, more devices will be mobile than cabled, so IF your business depends on some obscure hardware devices that does not support IPv6 - like various DSL devices in Denmark for instance, they are DYING and DYING fast.
I hope the best for you and your business plans, I cannot fathom though what business REQUIRES IPv4 for the foreseeable future - but my guess - it will DIE and be replaced by companies that understand the need for connectivity with the rest of the world - you know, IPv6 ;-)
Best regards
Henrik
PS I wrote my thesis about IPv6 at diku.dk in 2002 and did my first ping6 on AIX in the 1990s. So yes, I am quite biased towards IPv6 :-)
PPS I have also been in Africa and even though they ran oooold Windows versions they were further into the future with 3G data etc. Do NOT make the assumption that hardware will not be replaced if it does not live up to user expectations anymore.
-- Henrik Lund Kramshøj, Follower of the Great Way of Unix hlk@kramse.org hlk@solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler
---- 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 Lu & the people in the community,
A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high property taxes are the same reason.
As stated in the reply from Henrik as he put it soo nicely in his reply ... The cake is gone.. there is no cake. IPv4 is gone. Anything that has anything to do with any kind of fee structure based on how many IPv4's you have / own / use / not use / can't get is planning for failure imho. The RIPE NCC is a not for profit membership. This means that we as the members have to pay in order to have the organization do what we like them to do. What they do, is based on the activity plan. And that is also what is agreed (voted on) by the members on the AGM meeting. What we as members need to learn is that a membership of any kind of organization, if it is your political party or your soccer club or your friendly neighborhood IP redistribution friends which we call RIPE NCC, is that it costs money to run such an organization. It is always much more what they do for their funds, than just their core activity. A political party has, for instance to pay for balloons during campaigns or security and the cake and champagne they consume. And a soccer club has to pay the lease for their building, the weekly maintenance of the field and the goal netting, to name a view. But also for the Emergency Medics to be present during games, or pay a preset price to the local Red Cross to do such task. We have endless discussions about IPv4, and how we should charge based on how large a certain LIR is (looking at how many IP's they hold.) We want a fair system for people that want to start and don't make it impossible for all to start in this business. So here is the option one can chew on for the discussion: There is a membership fee, based on (budget minus (the young / new members newer than years times 1500 euro a year)) divided by the total number of members that are older than 2 years. You can play with the sliding scale for the cost for the initial year member, second year member in between 1500 and the longer than 2 years member fee, but that should be it. It is the fairest system that allows for people to grow their business, it has nothing to do with IPv4 / IPv6 ... or how much one has or doesn't have. It is based on the actual required budget/activities (which members vote on via the AGM meeting) And RIPE NCC can't get charged on a fee per IP TAX or something similar. And we can close this discussion every year. Regards, Erik Bais
Hi Erik: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Erik Bais <erik@bais.name> wrote:
Hi Lu & the people in the community,
A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high property taxes are the same reason.
As stated in the reply from Henrik as he put it soo nicely in his reply ... The cake is gone.. there is no cake. IPv4 is gone. Anything that has anything to do with any kind of fee structure based on how many IPv4's you have / own / use / not use / can't get is planning for failure imho.
The RIPE NCC is a not for profit membership. This means that we as the members have to pay in order to have the organization do what we like them to do. What they do, is based on the activity plan. And that is also what is agreed (voted on) by the members on the AGM meeting.
What we as members need to learn is that a membership of any kind of organization, if it is your political party or your soccer club or your friendly neighborhood IP redistribution friends which we call RIPE NCC, is that it costs money to run such an organization. It is always much more what they do for their funds, than just their core activity. A political party has, for instance to pay for balloons during campaigns or security and the cake and champagne they consume. And a soccer club has to pay the lease for their building, the weekly maintenance of the field and the goal netting, to name a view. But also for the Emergency Medics to be present during games, or pay a preset price to the local Red Cross to do such task.
We have endless discussions about IPv4, and how we should charge based on how large a certain LIR is (looking at how many IP's they hold.)
We want a fair system for people that want to start and don't make it impossible for all to start in this business.
So here is the option one can chew on for the discussion:
There is a membership fee, based on (budget minus (the young / new members newer than years times 1500 euro a year)) divided by the total number of members that are older than 2 years.
You can play with the sliding scale for the cost for the initial year member, second year member in between 1500 and the longer than 2 years member fee, but that should be it. It is the fairest system that allows for people to grow their business, it has nothing to do with IPv4 / IPv6 ... or how much one has or doesn't have. It is based on the actual required budget/activities (which members vote on via the AGM meeting)
This idea has few problems, if I may point it out: 1. The start of being a member of Ripe NCC has nothing to do with start of a business, Google or Huawei can become Ripe member tomorrow but they are world top 500 companies. 2. some members are only have few people(I know some LIR are less than 5 people company), and some members are national telecom, in whatever standard it is not fair for them to pay the same amount fees. 3. The idea which voting power concerns, it come as same as taxes in the real world, bill gates might paid billions times tax than an average person, but he still only count as one vote while in term of US elections. So as in the Ripe, large members contribute more financially does not imply they should have higher voting power in the organization.
And RIPE NCC can't get charged on a fee per IP TAX or something similar. And we can close this discussion every year.
Regards, Erik Bais
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi Lu,
This idea has few problems, if I may point it out:
1. The start of being a member of Ripe NCC has nothing to do with start of a business, Google or Huawei can become Ripe member tomorrow but they are world top 500 companies.
However the majority of the members are not the size of Google or Huawei and for them this would allow them grow to become the next Facebook or Google. And even if some company is having a benefit of being a large established company and being 'sponsored' at the start of their application period. I don't have a problem with that. Equal rules apply to everyone. Even if Huawei or Google with plenty of cash apply. That is where it is different from a commercial company where you could have some kind of differentiation based on who you sell to.
2. some members are only have few people(I know some LIR are less than 5 people company), and some members are national telecom, in whatever standard it is not fair for them to pay the same amount fees. My company has 1 FTE, it is started in 2010 and this year it was already rated as a LIR size medium. Is that fair ? HELL YES !! Would I like to cut the cost of 2500 euro back to 1500 euro ? Sure, who wouldn't, but if that means that the current activities are going to be cut in half, I would rather pay 3000 a year to avoid that.
3. The idea which voting power concerns, it come as same as taxes in the real world, bill gates might paid billions times tax than an average person, but he still only count as one vote while in term of US elections. So as in the Ripe, large members contribute more financially does not imply they should have higher voting power in the organization. I'm sorry, but as a membership .. it is 1 LIR/member, 1 vote.. a larger LIR member doesn't give you more voting power or more votes. It is the majority that rules. The comment that I made on taxes, was about the RIPE NCC not being charged by the Dutch IRS (Belastingdienst) if they avoid a charging schema which charges per IP address. (or something similar..)
Regards, Erik
Dear members, Ripe has designated a Taskforce to figure this out, please let (us) (them) some time to look into this matter. I am a member of this Taskforce. Kind regards to you all, Filip Herman Call us at +32 54 311.400 | E-mail us at info@kosmozz.be<mailto:info@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Simon Talbot Sent: dinsdag 14 februari 2012 13:07 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys” or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate. Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk<http://www.nse.co.uk/> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees
IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet.
More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма. -- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а): Hi All, IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is. New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. Regards Ben From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com<http://www.3c1b.com/> info@3c1b.com<mailto:info@3c1b.com> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resourc... “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.” The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip@kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
hi, We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the IP4 pool is very low...but... We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to bridge this gap. The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and therefore having to resort to renting space privately? Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to increase our fees, is this why? cheers Bill uk.kijoma
participants (12)
-
Bill Lewis -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Henrik Kramshøj Solido NOC abuse -
KOSMOZZ - Info -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
LIR -
Lu Heng -
Lu Heng -
Simon Talbot -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
William Weber