In my opinion it would not be wise to aggressively audit members. We have 2026 and not 2009. It would cost much money and would lead to cost-intensive lawsuits: Millions of USD for a questionable cause. We should keep things simple: If a LIR with 128-times more IPv4 space only pays 2.7-times (= Model A) or 2.3 times (= Model B) so much we already have found the problem. --Kayo ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kaj Niemi <kajtzu@basen.net> Sent: Wednesday, 11. Mar 2026 – 17:27 CET +0100 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> 'members-discuss@ripe.net' <members-discuss@ripe.net> Michal Krajčírovič <michal@krajcirovic.cz> CC: Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme You can't turn back time. Realistically, I mean. All this silly talk, no offense, of looting and industrial scale falsifying, etc - please. You don't need to be on a waiting list. I get 10+ emails weekly from various brokers offering, unsolicited, blocks of addresses. I can forward some of them to you if you want. The same offer is available to anyone else, too. Kaj ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michal Krajčírovič via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 17:23 To: Lutz Donnerhacke <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de>; 'members-discuss@ripe.net' <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme Hello, I apologize to everyone; what we are discussing here seems absurd to me. Undoubtedly it is the fault of us, the small LIRs, that we do not participate in the voting where the question of how much we should pay is decided. However, the main issue is not being addressed — that IP addresses were historically allocated inefficiently, often based on fabricated addressing plans, and those who obtained them in this way now pay the same as small LIRs, who must purchase IP addresses at high prices. And what does RIPE propose? That they should also pay for a place on the waiting list. I have a different proposal: immediately stop all inter-RIR transfers initiate a complete audit of IP usage in accordance with addressing plans after the audit, return all IPs used in violation of addressing plans (which includes at least all those being sold at various auctions) to the free pool Where are the days when Arne Kiessling was almost shutting down LIRs? When every minor issue and every suspicion of non-compliance was examined? I personally experienced such an audit at one of my former employers. Today nobody cares, and some “CEO of I-don’t-know-what” writes here that he trusts the members. Sure. We have allowed our own registry to be looted. And now small LIRs are supposed to pay the same as large ones. I call on all small LIRs: let us take RIPE back into our own hands, push for votes not only on payment issues but also on a complete audit, and make it the first registry that will have IP addresses again — because it will reclaim them from those who falsified addressing plans in the past on an industrial scale and are now making millions from it. Michal ------ Původní zpráva ------ Od "Lutz Donnerhacke" <L.Donnerhacke@iks-service.de> Komu "'members-discuss@ripe.net'" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Datum 11.03.2026 14:10:47 Předmět [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme +1 for Sebastian Wiesinger and Gert Döring from my side. We are a small ISP and will be hurt by a price increase for PI and AS resources, because we are doing business with them. 75€ are an irrelevant level of pricing. Even 1000€ per year is not that much compared to the other costs we have (personal, energy, licences, taxes, hardware, …). OTOH those independent resources are a burden to all of us, because they require resources at each of our routers: They increase the routing table and we have no option to filter them out (like we could do on traffic engineering at PA space). So I’ve to compare the increasing hardware costs against a „prohibitive” fee. Not an easy decision. Lutz Donnerhacke Von: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2026 11:12 An: members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] Re: NCC Charging scheme
On 11. Mar 2026, at 00:36, sdy@a-n-t.ru wrote:
I completely disagree with you.
I've personally proposed several linear models. I've proposed various risk
scenarios for the NCC and burden on participants. All proposals are being
ignored. Linear models are simply being removed from discussions by the
administration. Why? The MAJORITY of those participating in this
discussion here have spoken about linear models! This gives me reason to
suspect a certain vested interest on the part of the group and those who
set its goals.
The majority of those participating in this discussion is not the majority of those reading or voting. There are not a lot of members that are outspoken about linear models. I’m having trouble to understand which group you mean. The RIPE NCC? The charging scheme taskforce? The members? Could you define what you have identified as the group having a vested interest in keeping linear models out of the charging scheme?
You claim IPv4 is closed. Then explain to us why the market price of one
IP address is already reaching $50? Why don't we see free resources, only
rising prices?
The prices for IPv4 are falling for a while now. Still there will be no free resources until IPv6 adoption reaches 100%. (Taken from https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales)
The schemes proposed by the working group not only create inequality among
NCC participants; they cement a system in which the majority will pay for
the very profitable business of a small number of NCC participants. This
group of participants has historically acquired vast amounts of address
space, in part by establishing an inadequate distribution model. Although
warnings about the risks of such a "helicopter distribution" of resources
have been voiced repeatedly, it seems as if the group is strictly
advocating for their interests. This is unacceptable!
No-one is paying for the profitable business of anyone. Your membership fees are not handed out to other RIPE members. You’re paying for your RIPE NCC Services. This myth of an “inadequate distribution model” comes up again and again, can you define what you mean by that? The policy before the runout was based on the demonstrated need for addresses. Everyone that could proof a need for addresses got them. That doesn’t seem inadequate to me. There are no more IPv4 addresses to distribute so I’m not sure what you mean by “helicopter distribution”. There is no cake left to hand out.
The refusal to discuss linear models has led to the failure of votes on
new models time after time. This, as I understand it, also benefits this
group of NCC members.
We voted almost 15 years ago for a flat model. This model was again and again chosen. The RIPE NCC is a membership organization, not a commercial undertaking. A strict “price per IP” model would move it towards a commercial offering which has a whole lot of implications. This was discussed again and again. I would assume that if a majority of members thinks that a more resource based approach to the fees would be good they would vote for the charging scheme model that moves towards that goal? That wasn’t the case in the past. The last time there was a category based model to vote on was for the Charging Scheme 2024 and that option didn’t win.
I believe the working group should be disbanded. Its work is pointless;
we've already voted against such payment options twice.
We voted to keep the current model. If that is what the members want that is fine.
Ultimately, it's not the administration that decides what the payment
model should be. It should be the decision of NCC members, and it should
be a fair choice with all options, including linear models.
Otherwise, all these "elections" will once again degenerate into a farce!
What elections are you talking about? If you’re unhappy, there is an Executive Board Election coming up. I don’t see you on the candidate list right now but there is still time. If you want change there is your chance to influence the future of the organization. In general I don’t like these more or less subtle hints that there is supposed to be some sort of secret group or cabal or whatever you want to name it. The truth is that there are a lot of people and most of them have different goals and motivations. Getting 100% what you want is basically impossible. It will always be a compromise. Best Regards Sebastian -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG 90471 Nürnberg • Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 E-Mail sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel • AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
* Akayo wrote:
We should keep things simple: If a LIR with 128-times more IPv4 space only pays 2.7-times (= Model A) or 2.3 times (= Model B) so much we already have found the problem.
I do not understand this fetish on IPv4. Use IPv6, as normal people do, and stop complaining. Use 6to4-NAT solutions to reach the legacy space out there. The problem, we have is the size of the DFZ. This costs money, everybody here and every day. We have problems with reconvergence during interconnection issues. We have problems with ever increasing hardware resources etc. pp. So let's pay per visible DFZ entry: an additional RIPE tax to tidy up the DFZ. One AS and visible route per address-family is included in the LIR fee. Assume you are running an IXP: - you have an AS für your own business and a PA space, because you are LIR - you have an additional AS for the IXP and an PI space for the same purpose You stick with the 75€ RIPE handling fee for each of those four objects. If your IXP network is visible: add xxx€ If your IXP AS is visible: add xxx€ If you have an PI/PA space: One per LIR is free, the others count in. If you deaggregate your space: xxx€ per route. If you merge with an other LIR: pay xxx€ for the formerly included ones. How to calculate the xxx€? From the merger case the equivalence of 3* xxx€ = 1* LIR-fee arises. (That's the AS, an IPv4 route, and an IPv6 route). Assuming a LIR fee of 1500€, the amount in question = 500€. If you are a large ISP with multiple networks, you pay for them. If you deaggregate those networks aggressively to save money on interconnections traffic engineering, you have to pay for. If you use multiple AS in order to save money from routing optimizations. you have to pay for. If you are a small ISP with an IPv6, IPv4, and an AS. Pay our LIR fee. If you are buying IPv4 in small entities from aftermarket, you have to pay for this DFZ pollution. If you aggregate your space, you'll save money. Did you notice, that I did not say anything about IPv4 sizes? I did not speak about IPv6, too. It does not matter. Lutz Donnerhacke
Am Donnerstag, 12. März 2026, 17:37:19 UTC+00:00:01 schrieb Lutz Donnerhacke:
I do not understand this fetish on IPv4. Use IPv6, as normal people do wow, thats sounds arrogant to claim others as "non normal" because they are part of the (still)3 >.2 billions of users (around 50%-54%) on earth with IPv4 only access.
Users with IPv6 only access - the "normal people" - are less then < 1% of internet users globally (< 50-100 million). THis might be one of the problems with the (i overdraw consciously here) "just drop IPv4 now" front: they - sitting in an environment where IPv6 is much easier to deploy, makes much more sense by business applications and broader adapted have no clue whats going on on this earth and why IPv6 is far from beeing a successor over IPv4 in the real internet to these days. cheers, niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi, On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 10:50:21AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach via members-discuss wrote:
THis might be one of the problems with the (i overdraw consciously here) "just drop IPv4 now" front: they - sitting in an environment where IPv6 is much easier to deploy, makes much more sense by business applications and broader adapted have no clue whats going on on this earth and why IPv6 is far from beeing a successor over IPv4 in the real internet to these days.
Repeating "IPv4 is so expensive" and "but we cannot deploy IPv6 here, for unspecified reasons" is not going to fix anything. Especially in regions where there is no large established base, rolling out IPv6 only + DNS64/NAT64 is a fairly reasonable strategy - look at what India's mobile networks did (all of them, after Reliance demonstrated that "yes, it can be done, as soon as you stop find arguments against"). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Am Montag, 16. März 2026, 13:06:30 UTC+00:00:01 schrieben Sie:
Repeating "IPv4 is so expensive" and "but we cannot deploy IPv6 here, for unspecified reasons" is not going to fix anything. pls read carefully - i did NOT said anything of both. I deployed IPv6 (dual stack) in our networks many years ago.
Especially in regions where there is no large established base, There is praactically no such region out anymore.
rolling out IPv6 only + DNS64/NAT64 is a fairly reasonable strategy - look at what India's mobile networks did (all of them, after Reliance demonstrated that "yes, it can be done, as soon as you stop find arguments against"). I just reminded to the reality out there (in real numbers) - not opinions or single cases.
just mny .02€ niels. -- --- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com PGP: https://syndicat.com/pub_key.asc ---
Hi, On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 10:13:04AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach wrote:
rolling out IPv6 only + DNS64/NAT64 is a fairly reasonable strategy - look at what India's mobile networks did (all of them, after Reliance demonstrated that "yes, it can be done, as soon as you stop find arguments against"). I just reminded to the reality out there (in real numbers) - not opinions or single cases.
"Reliance Mobilcom has 100% IPv6 only deployment, in one of the largest mobile networks of the world" Is that not a real number? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Gert, why do you always end up steering the conversation from the charging scheme to IPv6 deployment? I understand that you don't want to pay your fare share as a huge ipv4 holder, but no need to mislead and obfuscate each time someone brings up the subject of a charging scheme. On Tue, 17 Mar 2026, 14:39 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 10:13:04AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach wrote:
rolling out IPv6 only + DNS64/NAT64 is a fairly reasonable strategy - look at what India's mobile networks did (all of them, after Reliance demonstrated that "yes, it can be done, as soon as you stop find arguments against"). I just reminded to the reality out there (in real numbers) - not opinions or single cases.
"Reliance Mobilcom has 100% IPv6 only deployment, in one of the largest mobile networks of the world"
Is that not a real number?
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
Hi, On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 02:42:30PM +0400, Jean Salim wrote:
Gert, why do you always end up steering the conversation from the charging scheme to IPv6 deployment? I understand that you don't want to pay your fare share as a huge ipv4 holder, but no need to mislead and obfuscate each time someone brings up the subject of a charging scheme.
Why do people insist on riding a dead horse, and complaining that the end product does not smell good? There is no way to reach an end goal where "everybody is happy with IPv4", so wasting brain cycles and electrons on discussions how to make other people pay more than you (of course this is what I want, too, that everyone else pays more than we do) because you did not get your percieved fair share of IPv4 is just sidestepping the real issue. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
This discussion is about the charging scheme. Stop misleading it like each time. You don't have to give your opinion if you don't have any charging scheme proposal. On Tue, 17 Mar 2026, 14:49 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 02:42:30PM +0400, Jean Salim wrote:
Gert, why do you always end up steering the conversation from the charging scheme to IPv6 deployment? I understand that you don't want to pay your fare share as a huge ipv4 holder, but no need to mislead and obfuscate each time someone brings up the subject of a charging scheme.
Why do people insist on riding a dead horse, and complaining that the end product does not smell good?
There is no way to reach an end goal where "everybody is happy with IPv4", so wasting brain cycles and electrons on discussions how to make other people pay more than you (of course this is what I want, too, that everyone else pays more than we do) because you did not get your percieved fair share of IPv4 is just sidestepping the real issue.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 02:59:35PM +0400, Jean Salim wrote:
This discussion is about the charging scheme. Stop misleading it like each time. You don't have to give your opinion if you don't have any charging scheme proposal.
It wasn't me who brought up "but we can't deploy IPv6". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Pre-S: Geoff: could APNIC Labs test for IPv6-only? TLDR: - https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ for the full world map. - https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/ripe-mailing-lists/ipv6-wg/ if an ISP needs help deploying IPv6...
On 17 Mar 2026, at 10:15, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 10:13:04AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach wrote:
rolling out IPv6 only + DNS64/NAT64 is a fairly reasonable strategy - look at what India's mobile networks did (all of them, after Reliance demonstrated that "yes, it can be done, as soon as you stop find arguments against"). I just reminded to the reality out there (in real numbers) - not opinions or single cases.
"Reliance Mobilcom has 100% IPv6 only deployment, in one of the largest mobile networks of the world"
Is that not a real number?
The numbers in India are indeed super impressive: https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/IN ASN AS Name IPv6 Capable IPv6 Preferred Samples AS55836 RELIANCEJIO-IN Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited 96.54% 95.59% 51,659,603 AS45609 BHARTI-MOBILITY-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd. AS for GPRS Service 90.49% 89.11% 23,972,363 AS24560 AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services 74.97% 74.32% 9,077,340 AS9829 BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone 15.79% 15.54% 3,300,364 Especially combined with knowing that Reliance is IPv6-only for their network, while the above networks are not. Great work by them. Compared to say Germany: https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/DE ASN AS Name IPv6 Capable IPv6 Preferred Samples AS3320 DTAG Internet service provider operations 80.19% 79.52% 5,752,829 AS3209 VODANET International IP-Backbone of Vodafone 67.26% 66.61% 3,115,237 AS6805 TDDE-ASN1 84.38% 83.66% 1,330,160 AS8881 VERSATEL 83.29% 82.44% 1,004,997 AS9145 EWETEL 56.84% 56.17% 223,734 The sample size of India is 10x, that means that 10 times more customers (per ISP) are hitting the Ads that APNIC Labs makes for this.... that is a LOT (which makes sense with the population size of course) Now Russia and most of Africa though... not much IPv6 there... they got lot of work to do. I have noticed a lot of folks from the east having issues with IPv4 and having discussions about pricing though; but clearly not much IPv6 deployment happening. If any ISP needs help deploying IPv6... many people in the RIPE and other RIR communities have been trying to help people for much of more than30 years already... but if extra hints are needed, never hesitate to ask, that is what the RIPE **COMMUNITY** is for: to help eachother out. Do not hesitate to subscribe and ask questions on: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/ripe-mailing-lists/ipv6-wg/ Regards, Jeroen
Hi. It is new and may be interesting idea. But how to administrate it? -------------------- Dmitry Serbulov --------------------
* Akayo wrote:
We should keep things simple: If a LIR with 128-times more IPv4 space only pays 2.7-times (= Model A) or 2.3 times (= Model B) so much we already have found the problem.
I do not understand this fetish on IPv4. Use IPv6, as normal people do, and stop complaining. Use 6to4-NAT solutions to reach the legacy space out there.
The problem, we have is the size of the DFZ. This costs money, everybody here and every day. We have problems with reconvergence during interconnection issues. We have problems with ever increasing hardware resources etc. pp.
So let's pay per visible DFZ entry: an additional RIPE tax to tidy up the DFZ. One AS and visible route per address-family is included in the LIR fee.
Assume you are running an IXP: - you have an AS für your own business and a PA space, because you are LIR - you have an additional AS for the IXP and an PI space for the same purpose You stick with the 75€ RIPE handling fee for each of those four objects. If your IXP network is visible: add xxx€ If your IXP AS is visible: add xxx€
If you have an PI/PA space: One per LIR is free, the others count in. If you deaggregate your space: xxx€ per route. If you merge with an other LIR: pay xxx€ for the formerly included ones.
How to calculate the xxx€? From the merger case the equivalence of 3* xxx€ = 1* LIR-fee arises. (That's the AS, an IPv4 route, and an IPv6 route). Assuming a LIR fee of 1500€, the amount in question = 500€.
If you are a large ISP with multiple networks, you pay for them. If you deaggregate those networks aggressively to save money on interconnections traffic engineering, you have to pay for. If you use multiple AS in order to save money from routing optimizations. you have to pay for.
If you are a small ISP with an IPv6, IPv4, and an AS. Pay our LIR fee.
If you are buying IPv4 in small entities from aftermarket, you have to pay for this DFZ pollution. If you aggregate your space, you'll save money.
Did you notice, that I did not say anything about IPv4 sizes? I did not speak about IPv6, too. It does not matter.
Lutz Donnerhacke To unsubscribe or manage your subscription, log in to the LIR Portal with your RIPE NCC Access account and go to the LIR Account page: https://my.ripe.net/#/account-details.
Scroll down to Membership Mailing Lists to update your 'members-discuss' subscription.
Having issues unsubscribing? More information about managing your subscription can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/s/members-discuss-subscription-options/
participants (7)
-
Akayo -
Gert Doering -
Jean Salim -
Jeroen Massar -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Niels Dettenbach -
sdy＠a-n-t.ru