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/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] Multiple LIR account mergers
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Multiple LIR account mergers
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Multiple LIR account mergers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Craig Arnold
craig.arnold at airband.co.uk
Wed May 2 13:47:29 CEST 2018
I support what Adrian has said here. As a small ISP we don’t have enough addresses to cover all of our customers, let alone our own infrastructure as well. Prices from brokers are in the region of EUR12 per IP, which is simply not possible to justify for a small company. The problems of not having enough addresses means relying on CGNAT to get customers connected, and all the issues that come with it. Not such a problem for mobile providers, but providers of fixed-line broadband have a much harder time with this technology. Sure IPv6 is the solution, but until we’re past the threshold where the majority of content is IPv6 enabled we still have to supply public IPv4 addresses to all customers in some form. I’d like to see governments selling its stock of unused addresses to local business that can prove a need at an affordable price. Everyone wants to sell their IPs to fund their own IPv6 rollouts. Great, so the little guys have to spend their cash on extortionate IPv4 prices just to keep up, stalling or preventing their own IPv6 rollouts, while the bigger players get their rollouts partially funded. If businesses can show they’re planning to or currently rolling out IPv6, they should have fairer access to IPv4 resources while they continue those plans. I think the RIRs need to step in and help here. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Adrian Bolster Sent: 02 May 2018 09:46 To: William <william at william.si>; Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl <thomas at niceblue.it> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Multiple LIR account mergers The current rules are a good middle ground, however, as a relatively new ISP we can only access one /22 per LIR. Newer entities, such as us, do not have legacy IPv4 space which immediately inhibits growth and competition in the ISP marketplace. A fairer policy would be to allocate for a LIR’s justifiable needs, taking into account their current allocations; but for RIPE to retain an override on these allocations. By monitoring for any unused space it would be possible to remove any unused to be recycled. Also, governments and larger organisations are sat on huge IPv4 real estate that is not in use. This is another area that needs exploring. After all, IPv6 isn’t ubiquitous yet, so something constructive has to be done. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>> On Behalf Of William Sent: 01 May 2018 18:15 To: Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl <thomas at niceblue.it<mailto:thomas at niceblue.it>> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Multiple LIR account mergers As someone that would profit from this i am absolutely against it. RIPE exists for specific reasons - selling out IPs is not one of them, and the legacy market as well as inter-RIR transfers cover the business needs at this time. The current merger rules are a good middle way. -- William Weber Consulting, Security & Management - Tel-Aviv, Israel / Rijeka, Croatia https://ip6.im<https://ip6.im/> - No RIPE LIR? Still read this email for some reason? Grab a /40 *free* IPv6 space for BGP usage. Or just get it anyway, can't hurt to have. On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 13:17, Thomas Gallo - Nice Blue srl <thomas at niceblue.it<mailto:thomas at niceblue.it>> wrote: YES! Probably this would be possible... ...just setting the RIPE sign-up fee of 4600 EUR that includes the first two years of membership in a non refoundable way ( : Thomas Il 01/05/2018 10:45, Dmitry Vorozhtsov ha scritto: I think it would be great! Best regards, Dmitry Vorozhtsov. 2018-04-30 22:07 GMT+09:00 Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov at gmail.com<mailto:aleksbulgakov at gmail.com>>: Hello, all. What do you think if the NCC allow to merge accounts of the same company without 24 months restriction? I thing this question should be discussed on the RIPE meeting in Marseille. ----- Kind regards, Alexey _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> https://mailman.ripe.net/ Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/dvorozhtsov%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net> https://mailman.ripe.net/ Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/thomas%40niceblue.it -- -- Thomas Gallo @ Nice Blue s.r.l. Centro Direzionale Interporto Padova - Torre B Galleria Spagna, 35 - 35127 PADOVA (PD) Fixed phone: +39 (0)49 85 94 766 Fax line: +39 (0)49 82 51 032 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180502/bca1e5fd/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Multiple LIR account mergers
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Multiple LIR account mergers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]