<div dir="ltr"><div>>> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand. Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources. Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. </div>Vlad </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Tony Turner <<a href="mailto:tony.turner@nodemax.com" target="_blank">tony.turner@nodemax.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-GB"><div> Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does in the telecoms market. IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a difference. Tony <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" target="_blank">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a>] On Behalf Of Joao Silveira Sent: 16 December 2013 11:48 To: <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC </div></div> Hi All,Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively.Hugs,<div>--- Joao Silveira<img src="http://w3c.bitcanal.com/webmail/mail/skins/default/images/logo.png" alt="logo"> </div>On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: <blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #1010ff 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div>Hi All, A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP’s .. What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market .... Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage and of course lack of Government funding. First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. Now we have given back promptly 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”. With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP’s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile .. So charging won’t necessarily work. Regards Tony <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" target="_blank">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a> [<a href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net" target="_blank">mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a>] On Behalf Of Oliver Bryssau Sent: 16 December 2013 09:59 To: RIPE Cc: <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC </div> Hi All,I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively.Merry Christmas, Oliver<div>On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <<a href="mailto:ripe@centronet.cz" target="_blank">ripe@centronet.cz</a>> wrote: Hello, everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. Merry Christmas to everyone Matej Vavrousek CentroNet, a.s. -----Original Message----- From: <a href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net</a>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: <a href="mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net" target="_blank">members-discuss@ripe.net</a> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net" target="_blank">gert@space.net</a>> wrote: > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > money in the denial phase. Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) A. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: <a href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view" target="_blank">https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view</a> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: <a href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view" target="_blank">https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view</a> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. </div></div></blockquote></div></div> ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: <a href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view" target="_blank">https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view</a> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. </blockquote></div> </div>