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

2016-09-23 0:48 GMT+01:00 Simon Lockhart <
s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk>:

> On Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:31AM +0100, Teot?nio Ricardo wrote:
> > That???s why i think there shouldn???t exist any IPv4 Transfer market.
> This
> > should be disallowed by RIPE.
>
> And how do you propose RIPE do this?
>

Isn't RIPE the entity who controls IPv4 Allocation transfers? If RIPE
wants, no one can transfer Allocation Resources, so there isn't a market.


>
> > 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.
>
> So, entertain me, and lets believe that LIRs will return some IPv4
> addresses
> to RIPE. What do you think will happen then? Suddenly there will be enough
> IPv4 for everyone that wants some?
>

If LIRs need to pay more for IPv4 Allocation, they will want to reduce
costs and speed up IPv6 implementation. Those who don't return their unused
IPv4 allocations and don't implement IPv6, will suffer in a near future the
consequences. Meanwhile, their higher fees can be used to fund IPv6
implementation initiatives (Workshops, Marketing material, development,
etc).


>
> I've asked this question / made this point several times, as have others.
> No-one has responded with a reasoned explanation of what they think would
> happen with all these mysteriously returned IPs that would make more than
> a drop in the ocean.
>
> Meanwhile, the deckchairs that you keep trying to rearrange are floating
> away...
>
> Simon
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160923/780a747a/attachment.html>