W dniu 2016-02-11 o 16:52, Jack pisze:

Well there are compagnies in that wild world that : - are "new" (didn't exists in near 2k) - have a huge utilization of IP addresses - do not have enough money to pay 15€/IPv4

Are they just supposed to die ? You cannot blame the survive instinct:)

Buying a compagny to get its IP are a solution for rich people, I am pretty sure that google, lvl3 nor akamai will ever run out of IP

I agree with Jack. Market price per IP is to expensive. We have lot of small companies in Poland which are serving services in "white area's - called white stains - where there is no business for big ISP to invest ", this is more voluntary services than business. All they have the same problem - lack of IPv4. But I think problem is similar in other countries. Setup additional LIR account is not logical. Why to pay /22 if you don't need this at this moment. I think it should be "Additional Fee for resources additional resources more than /22 " It should be based on minimal /24 allocation and with annual fee that will not exceed annual provider fee for /22. This fee should be based on quarter of year. With some reasonable request limit by year. For example annual fee for /24 is 340E If you request it in May you will pay 225E. If you lost a client you will return /24 back to ripe. It will help smaller ISP/LIRs to serve our services. We have almost 4500 km of network with /22. I know companies who do not have any network now but they have /18 /20. It should be a rule to get legal address space, not buying it from the market. Best regards Dariusz Siedlecki Glenbrook

This same rule applies now: you cannot have more than a /22 from the RIPE NCC, so some other "white area ISP" can have a /22 next year.

I totally agree. The mission of RIPE is to allow new entrants at the best conditions. If you already are in business and need more IPv4, there is a market. If it is too expensive for you, that's unfortunate. Perhaps your business-model needs some improvement. Denis

W dniu 2016-02-12 o 10:39, Gert Doering pisze:

This same rule applies now: you cannot have more than a /22 from the RIPE NCC, so some other "white area ISP" can have a /22 next year. Gert Doering -- no hats

It is not right argument, because some of them is to small to pay Startup & Annual Fee and they don't need to be LIR if they need /25 or /24. I have technical ability to help them but I don't have IPv4 needed by them. Cost looks different, from different point of view - depends from EU country. Best regards, Dariusz

W dniu 2016-02-12 o 10:23, Dariusz Siedlecki pisze:

[...]

We have almost 4500 km of network with /22. I know companies who do not have any network now but they have /18 /20.

It should be a rule to get legal address space, not buying it from the market.

Best regards Dariusz Siedlecki Glenbrook

Polish regional networks build from public money should have funds to buy address space from the market. This should be planned like other buys - switches, cables, backup power generators, etc. Best regards -- Tomasz Śląski SKONET ISP Rozwiązania ICT dla ISP

On 12.02.2016 11.59, Dominik Nowacki wrote:
> This, or CG NAT. 1 village / end point / 1-2 IPs and CG NAT for the whole village + /56 IPv6 per household.
I think this is a very important point:
- make sure you invest in IPv6 from the start if you start up today.

All the "major" services like Google and Facebook are reachable over 
IPv6, and there is quite some incentive in building new service the same 
way,



-- 
Hans Petter Holen
Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

Hi!

This is not right way. What should to do if ipv4 resources in company exhausted? Stopp business?

That's easy: The same we would do if the natural resources of the planet are exhausted: We'd move to a different planet! (*big grin*) No, seriously: use IPv6. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 4 years to go ! Dr.-Ing. Nepustil & Co. GmbH fon +49 7123 93006-0 pi@nepustil.net Rathausstr. 3 mob +49 171 3101372 72658 Bempflingen

Witam, I agree 100% with this opinion. It should be prohibited to sell/buy address space between two LIR (not /22 also olders assignments). It should be some solidarity or prices should be regulated by RIPE not by market. Now companies who have lot of IPv4 are against any changes. New companies have tied hands. And RIPE is in the middle. But they all pay the same fee. Best regards Dariusz

On 12/02/2016 09:34, Kurt Jaeger wrote:

...

No, seriously: use IPv6. Most of my customers have IPv6. Sadly, the rest of the do not

On 12/02/2016 11:59, Dominik Nowacki wrote:

...

This, or CG NAT. 1 village / end point / 1-2 IPs and CG NAT for the whole village + /56 IPv6 per household. Is really CGNAT the RIPE-NCC solution for ipv4 exhaustion ? As a network engineer, and as a customer, CGNAT look like the worst solution.

To answer the talk from Gert and other, about the holy mission of the RIPE, I agree with them, somehow. The RIPE is supposed to show justice, right ? Equality ? Good not evil ?

Let's reap all useless IPv4. You want to sell IPv4 ? Obviously, you do not need that subnet. You do not announce that subnet over the internet ? Reaped. You want to transfert that subnet between two obviously not related compagny ? Reaped.

As the Protector of the weaks, and to preserve viability of the newcommers, the RIPE-NCC *must not* allow people to make business on the back of the new. IPv4 are a resource of common interest, not a plot of land that can be sell to the richer.

Do not you think ?

Hi, before going into further discussions, it might be good to get relevant information about IPv4 resources. So my question to RIPE is quite simple: Do ALL companies in RIPE region have to pay for their IP address space they use? What happened to distributed IPs of i.e. bankrupt ISPs? Or mergers? Or old privately registered space before 1996? Kind regards, John Fitzgerald ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Fitzgerald Interactive Network GmbH MD/Geschaeftsfuehrer Jahnstrasse 15 http://www.internet.de D-60318 Frankfurt am Main ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Administrator - [ inAsset | NixMad ] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 1:05 PM Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts +1 This should be discussed in the next RIPE Meeting. There are companies with a lot of unused space. Administration - [ inAsset | NixMad ] P : +34 911 335 002 F : +34 911 701 242 E-mail : admin@inasset.es / admin@trueinter.net Video : https://vimeo.com/nixmad/inasset —————— We deliver True Internet El 12 feb 2016, a las 13:03, Dariusz Siedlecki <dariusz.siedlecki@olss.pl> escribió: Witam, I agree 100% with this opinion. It should be prohibited to sell/buy address space between two LIR (not /22 also olders assignments). It should be some solidarity or prices should be regulated by RIPE not by market. Now companies who have lot of IPv4 are against any changes. New companies have tied hands. And RIPE is in the middle. But they all pay the same fee. Best regards Dariusz On 12/02/2016 09:34, Kurt Jaeger wrote: No, seriously: use IPv6. Most of my customers have IPv6. Sadly, the rest of the do not On 12/02/2016 11:59, Dominik Nowacki wrote: This, or CG NAT. 1 village / end point / 1-2 IPs and CG NAT for the whole village + /56 IPv6 per household. Is really CGNAT the RIPE-NCC solution for ipv4 exhaustion ? As a network engineer, and as a customer, CGNAT look like the worst solution. To answer the talk from Gert and other, about the holy mission of the RIPE, I agree with them, somehow. The RIPE is supposed to show justice, right ? Equality ? Good not evil ? Let's reap all useless IPv4. You want to sell IPv4 ? Obviously, you do not need that subnet. You do not announce that subnet over the internet ? Reaped. You want to transfert that subnet between two obviously not related compagny ? Reaped. As the Protector of the weaks, and to preserve viability of the newcommers, the RIPE-NCC *must not* allow people to make business on the back of the new. IPv4 are a resource of common interest, not a plot of land that can be sell to the richer. Do not you think ? ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

I'm for opening the market up further, with inter-RIR sales between LIRs which (correct me if I'm wrong) is only possible currently with legacy resources through third-party IP brokers. If you want to reduce the price, increase the availability in through an open market. Over Regulation of inter-LIR sales will create a shortage. -Tim Note: I need more IP space, so it's not like I want to have to buy them, I'd love it if I could just claim more for free from RIPE, but that just isn't viable or fair. On 12/02/2016 14:43, Daniel Stolpe wrote:

Oh my. I would like to think that in Poland you were done with socialist economy. In Sweden we do have some tendencies in that direction, most obvious when it comes to rental flats. And well, it was not originally a socialist idea but a temporary rule during World War II, just that nobody realised the war ended + 70 years ago.

So what we have is regulated prices on rental flats. As a result there is no money in building new houses and thus a shortage. If you want to rent a flat you have to wait for 10-20 years. And because of the shortage a rental contract has a "value" that you don't want to give up. So we have a shortage *and* empty flats. And even though you are not allowed to sell the contracts people still do (pretending to swap flats, which is legal).

In short - the idea might sound nice but it does not work. If holders of unused IPv4 space are allowed to sell addresses on an open market, chances are much bigger it will be used. If not, the holder will probably keep it in case it will be needed in the future. And as with the flats, peoble would still sell them, but probably not update the registry and then we have other, serious problems.

So even if it seems unfair that early adopters can make money from something they once got more or less for free, the alternatives are less tempting.

Cheers,

Daniel

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Dariusz Siedlecki wrote:

...

Witam,

I agree 100% with this opinion.

It should be prohibited to sell/buy address space between two LIR (not /22 also olders assignments). It should be some solidarity or prices should be regulated by RIPE not by market.

Now companies who have lot of IPv4 are against any changes. New companies have tied hands. And RIPE is in the middle.

But they all pay the same fee.

Best regards Dariusz

...

On 12/02/2016 09:34, Kurt Jaeger wrote:

...

No, seriously: use IPv6. Most of my customers have IPv6. Sadly, the rest of the do not

...

This, or CG NAT. 1 village / end point / 1-2 IPs and CG NAT for

On 12/02/2016 11:59, Dominik Nowacki wrote: the > whole village + /56 IPv6 per household. Is really CGNAT the RIPE-NCC solution for ipv4 exhaustion ? As a network engineer, and as a customer, CGNAT look like the worst solution.

To answer the talk from Gert and other, about the holy mission of the RIPE, I agree with them, somehow. The RIPE is supposed to show justice, right ? Equality ? Good not evil ?

Let's reap all useless IPv4. You want to sell IPv4 ? Obviously, you do not need that subnet. You do not announce that subnet over the internet ? Reaped. You want to transfert that subnet between two obviously not related compagny ? Reaped.

As the Protector of the weaks, and to preserve viability of the newcommers, the RIPE-NCC *must not* allow people to make business on the back of the new. IPv4 are a resource of common interest, not a plot of land that can be sell to the richer.

Do not you think ?

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm

---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

Hello, Here is another idea for the mix, but at first I need to answer this:

On 12.02.2016, at 12:09, Jack <noc@kwaoo.net> wrote:

…

Let’s reap all useless IPv4. I can claim any address as taken, so no point. You want to sell IPv4 ? Obviously, you do not need that subnet. Because right now, it has value. If I strongly believe in v6, I sell everything not tight down. You do not announce that subnet over the internet ? Reaped. There are reasons for unannounced space, even when in use, so no point. You want to transfert that subnet between two obviously not related compagny ? Reaped. If one big client in at.isp got bought by de.bigcorp, and bigcorp is customer of de.acme, then I might need to transfer all the IPs over, as de.acme does not have enough space for migration. I might even get paid to do that. Why not? Otherwise the client leaves me, and I fake the usage, so I can pick up new customers, and you don’t take the addresses away from me in the meantime.

As the Protector of the weaks, and to preserve viability of the newcommers, the RIPE-NCC *must not* allow people to make business on the back of the new.

That’s easy: next time we choose a payment plan, revert it back to address space. Then every LIR with lots of unused space will sell it, because they would have something like negative interest rates on this “property”.

IPv4 are a resource of common interest, not a plot of land that can be sell to the richer. Right, but tight resources always lead to competition. We can choose how to regulate the competition. Redistribution? Just take large allocations, and give it to new members? As currently implemented, make it a trading good? Or make a controlled market, so RIPE-NCC has to fix the daily price as stock exchanges do? Do not you think ?

Thanks for the question. I like the idea of transparency. I doubt there is much really unused space anymore. So I would be interested how much space is already “double booked” with CGNAT, and how much space is still in tiny subnets? So we need clear RIPE-DB info about that. Since trading is allowed to block a black market, I would rather see price transparency, than closed doors. That could get so far, if you try to buy space from your straw man, you would need to shell market price for it, since it is a transparent market. This all can only slow down the desperate. So the solution must be to have all government agencies converted to native v6, or require barrier free access to public network resources, so no IPv4 on any online shopping website, since it is a barrier for v6 only customers. I should be entitled to get my money back, when I’m not able to reach a v6 destination of my choice. This would eliminate v4 only eyeball networks. This are only ideas, but I want to make clear there are many other ways to make v4 not so attractive anymore. If some old ISPs really park unused space, they should pay higher fees, as this makes the work of RIPE-NCC harder, and forces the rest of the community to jump through any loophole they can find. Or even any of the more radical ideas. I support the motion that one euro isn’t the same euro when dealing with London City Networks, or rural Moldova. So buying IPv4, especially if you have to build a network from refurbished or plain used equipment isn’t feasible. And we can’t look at it so darwinistic “wrong business plan”, we would miss an opportunity, widening the digital divide, and increase the run to the large wealthy cities. So please make v6 more attractive, or a plain requirement. Matthias -- UCND United City Network Development GmbH Ungargasse 58/13 1030 Wien, Österreich FN 188089b beim Handelsgericht Wien UID ATU 54974906 Mag. Matthias Šubik Hotline: +43 780 363636 Mobil.: +43 676 83820-787

On Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 12:50:54PM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

On 12.02.2016 10.07, Tore Anderson wrote:

...

It would also be important that "entity" isn't understood to simply mean "an entry in a country's organisation register", as that would leave a gaping and trivially exploitable loophole. How should it be understood then?

It is going to be almost impossible to come up with a definition of "entities under common control" which is enforcable by RIPE across all the countries within their region. Hence the best we can come up with is "One legal entity [which I believe to be definable and enforceable], one LIR". If I create "Company A", then want more IPs, so ask my friend to create "Company B", who registers as an LIR, then I agree with my friend to merge Company B into Company A, then RIPE have no way to detect and/or enforce this. We can't make everything perfect, but we can do the best we can to implement the intent of the "Last /8" policy. If people want to circumvent it, there's ways to do it - as above. In response to other replies to this thread, we're not talking about changing the last /8 policy to make it "fairer" to those who see it as "unfair" for them, as I believe what's there as policy is, if you take into account the whole RIPE community, about as fair as you can be. Trying to reclaim IP resources from LIRs is (almost) impossible. Globally, it has been accepted that IPs are tradable. Either RIPE can be part of that process (as it does through its trading platform), or it can choose not to. That won't stop the trades happening, but if RIPE is part of the process, then it adds some transparency. IPv4 has run out. There are ways to get more than you've currently got (i.e. the open market), but if you're building your business plan on persuading RIPE to give you more IPv4 addresses, either by 'bending' existing policy, or by expecting the policy to change, then your business plan is broken. Simon

* Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net>

On 12.02.2016 10.07, Tore Anderson wrote:

...

It would also be important that "entity" isn't understood to simply mean "an entry in a country's organisation register", as that would leave a gaping and trivially exploitable loophole. How should it be understood then?

I do not presume to have any good answer. I would assume the NCC and/or the board would be in a better position to attempt to come up with a good definition. If that on the other hand should turn out to be impossible, restricting the number of LIRs per organisation seems like an exercise in futility to me. Case in point: https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/treffliste.jsp?navn=domene%20klubben&orgform=0&fylke=0&kommune=0 Background: *.no domain registrations used to be limited to a maximum of 10 domains per business. Private persons were supposed to use *.priv.no instead. It's quite obvious what actually happened. («Domene Klubben» translates as «The Domain Club».) Tore