This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Varasdy Imre Csaba
csvarasdy at shadow.ms.hu
Fri Jul 27 12:12:34 CEST 2012
I totally agree. The current rules - what made by us (members) makes even difficulty (maybe impossible) for the providers to get new IPv4 resources. On the other side, many of big providers/organisations have so much unused IPv4 resource, and even wasting them. For example a big local player gives a /24 for a leased line customer who really needs only fragment ( max of /26). Since we (the small and big players) have one vote per membership, i would to think of changing the rules, on making available of take back the unused resources. Also, the PI allocation should count to the members PA allocation together. Another thing on IPv4: if there is not so much pressure on big providers for changing their access (DSL, cable) networks to IPv6 (because the already have allocated but unassigned space) they will not move quickly. If they must, they will (i bet). If they can save money on giving back IPv4 pools and change to IPv6 (and maybe do NAT for users who not (software)upgrade their CPE to IPv6 compatible) - they can allocate those money for workhours and NAT devices. The resources what got back from those pools, can go back for re-allocation or servers side (so they will not ask also for it). That is my 2 cent. I hope at least smaller operators agree. >> I don’t believe that membership charging scheme should be influenced in any way by the “IPv4 conservationists”. Member fees are for member services, and nothing else. Yes, the bigger players should contribute *slightly* more, so we can keep the fees competitive for new entrants (more members = better for everyone), and there can be ways to “encourage” fair play. >> Now let’s hear no more of this “charge-per-IP” nonsense… > Great organization, great ip resources, great income... > Well, let's for commercial and not commercial organizations with ip addresses up to 1000-2000 for example will not charge a fee. > If you need more than 1000-2000 ip addresses, you understand and ready to pay, otherwise you will save you ip resources with strategies nat translation and port forwarding. > > > -- Üdvözlettel, Best Regards, ]=============================.signature===================[ Ifj. Varasdy Imre Microsystem-Kecskemet Kft. Wire:36 76 505 910 Wireless Internet Service Division
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012072401002498] Probably Free /8 networks in RIPE region
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]