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] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH
ripe at opteamax.de
Tue Apr 23 16:30:38 CEST 2019
Hi Sebastian, [...] > > To be honest, no. It is not a good index. If your business growth > depends on availability of IPv4 addresses it will fail. What exactly > is the point on basing the fees on IPv4 blocks now? What is the goal > this would achieve? IPv4 is over. People are fighting for scraps > instead of thinking of solutions (like moving to IPv6). Actually I think it shouldn't read "fees based on IPv4-Blocks" but "fees based on resources". Actually the point is that several "persons" created "$MANY" LIR (to receive more IPv4) and currently paid $MANY LIR-Fees. Now that the transfer-block-period is over now, they'd probably merge their LIR and suddenly pay only 1 LIR Fee instead of $MANY. Billing based on resources would mean that these kind of business stays less attractive by making it more expensive. > [...] > > If it has no impact what exactly is the goal of this then? RIPE NCC is > a membership organisation, not a shop for IPv4 space. Please replace IS with "IS MEANT TO BE". Unfortunately some think setting up LIR and renting/selling IPv4 is a real business. Looking on the prices currently being paid for selling/buying IPv4 brings up this idea. Therefore I'd really appreciate a billing scheme based on "per IP" (either per single IPv4 or per /48 IPv6) held by a LIR. I am pretty sure, that if every single IPv4 would increase costs for LIR, we'd suddenly have at least the amount of one /8 back in the pool within one year. This would destroy this "selling" of a resource which was actually never "bought" and make it easy to serve people which enter the business with a real internet related business. Yes, I am also a real big fan of IPv6 ... but unfortunately there are still many many services not running V6 out there (e.g. lots of the bigger SIP-Providers). Best regards Jens > > Regards > > Sebastian > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ripe%40opteamax.de > -- Jens Ott Geschäftsführer Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Geschäftsführer: Jens Ott Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]