Hello, You are right all will only delay exhaustion of IPV4 pool. But we are not ready to fully move to IPV6, the current technology is not ready too. What should happen to fully move to IPV6 by me: 1. First all (global,local) carriers all around the world to provide IPV6 connectivity (unfortunately we cant control this) 2. Next all Hosting data/center companies around to world to double IPV4 with IPV6 (maybe that can happen easier but imagine how many years it will take) 3. A lot Internet services to be reprogramed to use IPV6 (incredible amont of work) 4. End user providers to switch their systems to IPV6 (cant imagine operator with 20m - 30m clients to do this even in 3-4 years smoothly) All this will need huge investitions and a time. And the move will start happaning when there are no any other technical options naturally. RIPE NCC must never be business company, and I dont think it is bad to collect more money. With more money more services can be developed, and all of us will have benefit from it. Also RIPE NCC can hire more staff to control and watch resource usage, to clear blacklisted returned networks to watch for unpropper anoncements and e.t.c. Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, ripe-lr@cidr.eu wrote:

Still being definitely against that. It would also turn RIPE NCC from a non-profit organization into a business company.

Preserving IPv4 forever is definitely not the appropriate solution. Our problem won't be resolved by claiming more and more money each year for Internet Number Resources (and that would happen of course). The only thing such a charging scheme would lead to is another delay of the pool exhaustion and stagnation of technology.

____________________________________________________________________________ From: ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> Sent: Thursday, 17. Jan 2019 ? 12:49 CET +0100 To: Redcluster <admin@redcluster.org>

Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

Hello,

There are no doubts the future belongs to IPV6. But if we have no good scheme to control resource usage, what guarantee us 10-15 years after full ipv6 deploy we will be in same situation as now. Even the fact IPV6 have 65535^8 addresses if these resources are spilled unuzed and not optimized will over again. What better control mechanism could be than money ?

To be realistic I cant imagine how in next 10 years IPV6 will be fully deployed and will full substitute IPV4 from technical point of view. No matter what penalize or encouragement to LIRs will have to use IPV6, there are huge number of internet services that cant be easyly migrated. The migration will happen naturaly when there are no other options, pushing it will make only difficulties to Internet users and providers (all of us).

For me IP market is one big crap. Internet Resources must go where they are needed, not to sit locked and unused, because somebody want to earn easy money from this (speculators to go on exchanges here are no room for them). RIPE must take back all these nets which sits on the market, because obviously they are free and not used.

I am pretty sure there are big number of unoptimize resources LIRs hold. How many from you try to use 90% + from your resources I bet the number can fit in 12bits. But if have to pay for something not use, that number will grow a lot. And next time when your bussiness step up, you will have from where to get needed resources.

My opinion about charging scheme change for 2019 is positive. If your bussiness dont allow to pay 1400 euro in once, then you should not be LIR. There are and other options for you. With the scheme change maybe some smaller speculants that try to rent/sell resources only will gone.

Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Redcluster wrote:

...

Hello

A better solution would be to promote ipv6 and maybe offer incentives for ipv6 ready LIRs (or penalize LIRs that are not ipv6 ready).

We need to make sure any ipv4 address is mapped to an ipv6 address so we c an finally start to phase ipv4 out.

Bogdan

On Jan 17, 2019, at 8:54 AM, ivaylo <ivaylo@bglans.net> wrote:

Hello, I 100% agree with you ! As many resources one LIR consumes as bigger membership fee should be. Even to better optimize resources usage, the fee can be calculated on /24 basis. example: /17 = 128 x /24 fee = (128-4)*350 = 43 400 euro/year fee P.S. in your example should be: (32-1)*1400 = 39 200 euro. Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna Bulgaria On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, TrustHost wrote: Hi.   I think it would be great if the payment depends on the quantity the resources for one account. It would help to return unused IPv4 in free po ol for new business. The companies, who really use big networks won't notice such changes. But who received the resources before 2012 and has unused / 19 and maybe more will think if they really need such big blocks.   For example we can implement the next charging scheme. If one account has more than /20 (not equivalent 4x/22 or the blocks were allocated before 2012) the next /22 ownership will cost some price (e.g. 1400 euro).   For example: There is /17 IPv4 block for one LIR account. /17 = 32x/22. The total price for this account is (32-4)*1400 = 39 200 euro.   I think the members must have equal rights, regardless of the year of the membership started.   ------------------ Kind regards, Boris Loginov   TrustHost LLC

__________________________________________________________________________ __ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/admin% 40 redcluster.org