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

Hi there,

I have just a small objection to say to the guys that recommend /24 allocations, I saw plenty.

Please take a look at the BGP table at this moment[1], it is really fragmented and it did triple it’s size in last 6-7 years. I doubt that there is someone happy about this, and this is only our fault, not RIPE’s or other RIR’s.
We voted what we wanted, and not what we needed, and nevertheless we didn’t care about the future.

This IPv4 discussions should be closed, and talking about BIG LIRs vs SMALL LIRs is already deprecated, since we all are equal at this moment.

My hope is that the next big thing (lets say a new Facebook like app) will be born in Silicon Valley (s/Silicon Valley/any other IOT city/) and it will work on IPv6 only. From that moment IPv4 is dead, long live IPv6.


[1] http://bgp.potaroo.net/bgprpts/bgp-active.png
On 23 September 2016 at 01:17:14, Teotonio Ricardo (teotonio.ricardo at webtuga.pt) wrote:

Regarding this discussion, here is my suggestions about what i think that can be done:

 - Disallow LIRs to profit from IPv4 Transfers. If they aren't using resources, they should return them, not making money of them in a "black market". IPv4 Resources are owned by the community, not by a single LIR. No one should be able to create a market of these. If they're selling, i'm pretty sure they don't need them, because the ones who really need, will not be selling them at any cost.

- Start to allocate a minimum of /24 instead of /22 to new LIRs and allow them to get up to /22 in the first two years if they need. (A /24 each 6 months for example)

- Start charging by size of IPv4 allocation (setting a minimum and a maximum each year);

- Use the excessive money made from Annual Membership Fees to fund IPv6 Workshops, IPv6 implementation in opensource projects and internet protocols, IPv6 Marketing material for ISPs, Datacenters, Webhosting companies, Universities and end-users, etc.

- Reduce the Annual Membership Fee, compensate or even pay something to LIRs (using the excessive money - see above) that return their unused Resource Allocations. I'm pretty sure 99% of LIRs who have big unused resource allocations, will not make any move if they don't win something in return.

We need to give a boost to IPv6, but we all know that most of the big ISPs have previously been gathering more IPv4 allocations than they needed in order to take advantage of the future limitations that would occur, putting IPv6 implementation in second place.

If they start being charged by allocation, they will think about returning resources they aren't using and prioritize implementation of IPv6. In my opinion, as a community member, LIRs should have the allocations they need, not the allocations they want.

(Sorry for any grammatical or syntax error.)

Best regards,
TEOTÓNIO RICARDO: Technical Support & Account Manager @ WebTuga, Lda.
blog: blog.webtuga.pt - web: www.webtuga.pt - area de clientes: clientes.webtuga.pt
twitter: @webtugahosting - facebook: fb.me/webtugahostingfb
WebTuga - Soluções de Alojamento Cloud


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160923/72b88bbd/attachment.html>