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

I agree entirely, but a large number still don't and providing a solution
for those affected users is still a equipment during the transition period.
Not to mention we should also consider providing support for end users with
legacy equipment, which I don't see any real reasons against.
We (RIPE) have a surplus of funds each year, let's spend some of our
helping those that can't help themselves.
-Tim

On 22 Sep 2016 11:07 p.m., "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas at fccn.pt> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Tunnels? seriously? no, please...
>
> End-users shouldn't care about which IP version they are using.
>
> Anyone (at the end of 2016) providing service to third parties should be
> able to provide native IPv6...
>
> Regards,
> Carlos
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Tim Armstrong wrote:
>
>
>> Rather than bickering over the last scraps of IPv4, saving smaller LIRs a
>> few hundred euros, attempting to somehow screw the older LIRs, or three at
>> the same time.
>> Wouldn't our time be better spent working out ways to improve end user
>> adoption of IPv6?
>>
>> I'd like to propose RIPE set up a fund (summer of code style) for the
>> implementation of native IPv6 support in open-source software (such as
>> cloudsta k, etc) and
>> simplifying end-user adoption. Perhaps we should even offer a free public
>> IPv6 tunnel service for natural persons similar to the service currently
>> offered by
>> hurricane electric.
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>> On 22 Sep 2016 6:13 p.m., "Floris Bos" <bos at je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote:
>>       On 09/22/2016 01:57 PM, Daniel Pearson wrote:
>>             I'm not saying that a discussion is bad, but I'm simply
>> saying that most of the discussions are being had are not based on fact.
>>
>>             To my knowledge RIPE doesn't have a list of members
>> categorized by assignment size, so this is something that someone would
>> need to parse
>>             the RIPE db for, it's all public record so it can be done.
>>
>>
>>       Counting all allocated IPv4 each LIR has, and converting it back to
>> CIDR:
>>
>>       CIDR    Number of LIRs
>>
>>       <= /24       1
>>       <= /23       4
>>       <= /22    6051
>>       <= /21    1582
>>       <= /20    1638
>>       <= /19    1547
>>       <= /18    1040
>>       <= /17     709
>>       <= /16     386
>>       <= /15     293
>>       <= /14     134
>>       <= /13     110
>>       <= /12      80
>>       <= /11      64
>>       <= /10      25
>>       <=  /9      14
>>       <=  /8       6
>>       <=  /7       2
>>
>>       IPv6 only  241
>>
>>
>>       If we were to take ARIN's fees as example where up to and including
>> /20 is less expensive than RIPE's current fees, 9276 out of the 13686 LIRs
>> with IPv4
>>       would pay less.
>>       Not just new ones...
>>
>>       Total income would be similar.
>>
>>
>>       Yours sincerely,
>>
>>       Floris Bos
>>
>>
>>       ----
>>       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.
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160922/31728f2d/attachment.html>