[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts

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 at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Administrator - [ inAsset | NixMad ]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 1:05 PM
Cc: members-discuss at 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 at inasset.es / admin at trueinter.net

Video : https://vimeo.com/nixmad/inasset

——————	We deliver True Internet



El 12 feb 2016, a las 13:03, Dariusz Siedlecki <dariusz.siedlecki at 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.