[members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Rade Djurasinovic
rade.djurasinovic at blic.net
Mon Dec 16 14:16:59 CET 2013
On 12/16/2013 02:07 PM, Joao Silveira wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have now some specials brains working around IPv6 in New York, and > soon we be able to reach any IPv4 through IPv6 even this have only > IPv4 resources. > > :-) > > Wait. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > logo > You are talking about NAT64 and DNS64? But what if Your customers have only IPv4 CPE-s? How will your IPv6 customer establish IPSec with ipv4 only customer? Regards, Rade Djurasinovic > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:53:19 +0100, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > >> Hi Tony, >> >> 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it >> costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no >> way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is >> crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. >> 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases >> the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively >> 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying >> IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and >> sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. >> 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies >> (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going >> AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great >> advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. >> 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more >> you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment >> from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast >> 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if >> you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing >> it's a LEGAL thing. >> >> The rest is just noise. >> >> Paolo >> >>> Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not >>> bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. All I was saying is >>> charging for each IP's won't work where as it does in the telecoms >>> market. IP Market = resource < demand (charging won't help) Telecoms >>> Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) So you >>> can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won't make a >>> difference. Tony *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> <mailto:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> >>> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> <mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *Joao >>> Silveira *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 *To:* >>> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> >>> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by >>> NCC Hi All, Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down >>> definitively. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira logo On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 >>> 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: Hi All, A Fee for a Resource that >>> is significantly smaller than Demand won't work .... all it will do >>> is create another market for those with extra IP's ... What do other >>> markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to >>> work in this market .... Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence >>> worth so bear with me ... Our experience from a telecommunications >>> view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks >>> of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there >>> was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range >>> is 100,000 Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London >>> but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. Now Ofcom have never >>> charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to >>> change due to a shortage and of course lack of Government funding. >>> First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... >>> Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they >>> say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. They charge >>> 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. Now >>> we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big >>> mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some >>> of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the >>> service. Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not >>> using them will give them back as they know, "hey we can get some >>> more". With IP's that's different, I think whatever happens IPV4 >>> will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know >>> this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I >>> doubt the big telcos/ISP's will ever give them back. Irrespective of >>> a charge. The only IP's you may get back if they are charged for is >>> from small operators ... but as IP's are so scarce I even doubt >>> these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are >>> a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone >>> numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where >>> just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). You may think >>> great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make >>> you smile ... So charging won't necessarily work. Regards Tony >>> *From:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> <mailto:*members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> >>> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> >>> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> <mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *Oliver >>> Bryssau *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 *To:* RIPE *Cc:* >>> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> >>> members-discuss at ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] >>> Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi All, I think that post >>> hits the nail on the head perfectly. I guess if so many of us feel >>> this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is >>> something that can be done to create positive change. This would be >>> a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to >>> support ipv6 natively. Merry Christmas, Oliver On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, >>> "RIPE" <ripe at centronet.cz <mailto:ripe at centronet.cz> >>> ripe at centronet.cz>> wrote: Hello, everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" >>> is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and >>> those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be >>> true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. >>> While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that >>> punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more >>> IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might >>> have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones >>> would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few >>> more months/years this way. While I must admit I'm not sure how to >>> do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I >>> must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move >>> from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 >>> addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care >>> about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying >>> that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like >>> "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and >>> I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be >>> "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have >>> profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone >>> and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves >>> everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against >>> returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. >>> Merry Christmas to everyone Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s. >>> -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> <mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> >>> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> >>> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net >>> <mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> >>> members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: >>> Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: >>> members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> >>> members-discuss at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints >>> against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert >>> Doering <gert at space.net <mailto:gert at space.net> gert at space.net>> wrote: >>>> IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or >>> elsewhere >>>> will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so >>> all you >>>> are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of >>> effort and >>>> money in the denial phase. >>> Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be >>> no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to >>> release them and save money :) A. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR >>> details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >From here, you can add >>> or remove addresses. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR >>> details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >From here, you can add >>> or remove addresses. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR >>> details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add >>> or remove addresses. >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Ing. Paolo Di Francesco >> >> Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale >> >> Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo >> >> C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 >> Fax : +39-091-8772072 >> assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 >> web:http://www.level7.it >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> 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/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20131216/60115a76/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]