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

That’s why i think there shouldn’t exist any IPv4 Transfer market. This should be disallowed by RIPE.
If you don’t allow selling IPv4 and charge more for them, LIRs with a big percentage of unused IPv4 Allocations will start to return them and only keep what they really need to maintain their services until they fully migrate to IPv6.

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

> No dia 23/09/2016, às 00:35, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk> escreveu:
> 
> On Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 11:15:30PM +0100, Teotonio Ricardo wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No, the won't they'd get more money by selling them on the open market, than
> they would be reducing their RIPE fees. RIPE could never justifiably charge
> more than the IPs were worth on the open market, so no one will ever return
> them to RIPE.
> 
> Simon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160923/2f0f2905/attachment.html>