<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi All,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regards<o:p></o:p> Ben<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Hi Ulf,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Have a nice day,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cenk Keylan<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="434" style="width:325.3pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> <table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="434" style="width:325.3pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> <img width="120" height="62" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CCEB04.49E03A10" alt="Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CB9D2E.07D77BD0"><o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="434" style="width:325.3pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 3C1B Telekom�nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="434" style="width:325.3pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski�ehir Yolu 9.km No:266<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="434" style="width:325.3pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> 06800 �ankaya Ankara Turkiye<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="434" style="width:325.3pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> <table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> Tel<o:p></o:p> </td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> : +90-312-988-0000<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> Direkt<o:p></o:p> </td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> : +90-312-988-1015<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> Faks<o:p></o:p> </td> <td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> : +90-312-241-2888<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="434" style="width:325.3pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> <a href="http://www.3c1b.com/">http://www.3c1b.com</a><o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="434" style="width:325.3pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"> <a href="mailto:info@3c1b.com">info@3c1b.com</a><o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: <a href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]">[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]</a> On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Have a look at <a href="http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources"> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources</a><o:p></o:p> “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC.<o:p></o:p> <div> <o:p> </o:p> Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Best regards,<o:p></o:p> Ulf Kieber<o:p></o:p> Head of NOC<o:p></o:p> green.ch AG<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: <a href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]">[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]</a> On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Hi Lu,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used?<o:p></o:p> I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Kind regards,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filip Herman<o:p></o:p> <a href="mailto:filip@kosmozz.be">filip@kosmozz.be</a> <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> KOSMOZZ -- <a href="http://www.kosmozz.be/">http://www.kosmozz.be</a> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (<a href="http://www.ispa.be/">http://www.ispa.be</a>)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Van: <a href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]">[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]</a> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hi Colleagues:<o:p></o:p> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4)<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C)<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> So make the format simple:<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> C=(L/R*100%)*TN<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>