[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: [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 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 at ripe.net
[mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan
Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57
To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at 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
 

  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   

  [4]http://www.3c1b.com  

  [5]info at 3c1b.com   

  From: [6]members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net
[7][mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM
To: [8]members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees

Have a look at [9]
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources
                “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: [10]members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net
[11][mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info
Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26
To: Lu Heng; [12]members-discuss at 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
[13]filip at kosmozz.be  
 
KOSMOZZ -- [14]http://www.kosmozz.be 
| Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium ([15]http://www.ispa.be)
 
 
 
Van: [16]members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net
[17][mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng
Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44
Aan: [18]members-discuss at 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.

 

[1] http://www.InstantSSL.su/
[2] http://verisign.su/
[3] http://www.HostingConsult.ru/
[4] http://www.3c1b.com/
[5] mailto:info at 3c1b.com
[6] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net
[7] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net]
[8] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net
[9] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources
[10] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net
[11] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net]
[12] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net
[13] mailto:filip at kosmozz.be
[14] http://www.kosmozz.be/
[15] http://www.ispa.be/
[16] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net
[17] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net]
[18] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20120214/3aa93754/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2633 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20120214/3aa93754/attachment.jpg>