[members-discuss] GM topic

Hi,

On 26.04.2024 16:40, Thibaud Perret wrote:

> I have a question for Massimiliano, if he sees it:
>   
> Do you really need that many IPv6 addresses? Couldn't you just go with a single
> /40 allocation instead? That would still make a couple of /48 to be announced
> separately for you to keep your "lab allocation". If the answer is "yes" to that
> question, you could then pay well less in most if not all other RIR regions.

I could do with a much smaller allocation.  At present, I'm announcing 
both /29s, with the first one being where my infrastructure is (and an 
address I'm writing this e-mail from), and the second /29 has been used 
for some research such as the one you can find here 
(https://labs.ripe.net/author/stucchimax/a-bgp-side-effect-of-rpki/).

The point of the article was to compare what a "normal" LIR would pay in 
the different RIRs.  If I were to compare having a /48 (which would be 
PI at that point) I would be comparing two different things.
Additionally, I wanted to showcase how some decision could be hindering 
Internet development, such as the one from LACNIC to charge so much for 
IPv6 compared to all the other RIRs, and the similar situation at APNIC, 
although to a lesser extent.

To wrap this, could I do with a smaller allocation? Definitely. But I 
received a /29 as part of my membership and I can make some use of it. 
I could also live without a second /29, but that does not increase my 
membership fees.  I would return it if the charging scheme were to be 
like APNIC or LACNIC.

Ciao!

-- 
Massimiliano Stucchi
MS16801-RIPE
https://stucchi.ch
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20240426/de3ae9bd/attachment.sig>