[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:19:17PM +0200, Daniel Baeza wrote:
> I Wonder why solution to small LIRs is to adopt IPv6. It isnt.

Adopt it, it is the solution for all sizes. Spend your effort
on that not IPv4 envy
 
> The problem here is big (and not so big) old LIRs are keeping lot of 
> IPv4 resources they dont need. Resources that was given to them for 
> *free* and resources that they are *selling* to small and new LIRs that 
> only have a single /22.

A lot of land is owned by people who got it very cheap long ago. Try
taking it off them (Ok RIPE region covers countries where you in
theory just take what land you need. Try taking the Kremlin
they'll send you to Siberia where there's plenty but not as useful)

> And oh, surprise, we are paying the same. Why the big and old one can 
> keep and sell IPv4 resources while I need to buy at a high rate the same 
> resources?

You can sell yours at the same price to others if you didn't need it
This is why the scammers are creating lots of new LIRs. They think
it's fair that it's so cheap to get from RIPE vs market price and
will love it when you make it even cheaper for them
 
> Why they can *sell* the resources? Why they are not bound to return the 
> unused space?

History - can't rewrite it. You need a revolution to take it back

> Why I must pay the same if we dont have the same conditions? If we dont 
> have the same opportunities?

Because you came late and missed taking Paris.

> Also, you would say, CGN! CGN!. Soooo, I need to buy/mantain a CGN 
> becouse RIPE dont give me more space while other LIRs have a lot of 
> unused space and we are paying the same. They dont need to CGNAT while I 
> dont have any other option

Correct.

brandon