This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Fri Sep 23 09:04:53 CEST 2016
Hi, Big business can really wait for policies to go again their way... Imho, big business also expects to grow their business, so if they have any surplus, they won't tend to sell it, and risk having to buy the same resources later at a higher cost ;-) "Fully migrate to IPv6" is something tricky, because noone is expecting to really stop using IPv4 anytime soon. Firstly, IPv6 usage needs to become dominant, and then IPv4 usage needs to become residual. When the latter happens, then "migration" might be an appropriate term :-) But while we (together) build a full IPv6 Internet, everyone should know IPv4 operation is still essencial. Regards, Carlos Friaças On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Teotónio Ricardo wrote: > 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 > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]