<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>After reading this thread, I wonder to know if the following kind of idea has already been discussed. I apologize if so.</div><div><br></div><div>It’s pretty obvious that there will always be confronted interests among LIRs if we put on the table the possibility that their membership fees should be based on their ipv4 resource use (one simple idea: your membership fee is <ripe_budget>/<total_ipv4_managed_by_ripe> * <your_allocated_ipv4 >). Those with very large allocations would see this as completely unfair as RIPE would be suddenly breaking in their business cases by altering their costs schemes. I do think that this would help the transition to IPv6 due to the financial pressure that big players would now have and it could even be heavily increased by recurrently charging extra amounts per allocated IPv4 address destined to a fund created to promote IPv6 adoption by paying out subsidies for every IPv4 address space returned to RIPE.</div><div><br></div><div>However, I don’t think this will ever work because, to begin with, most probably it cannot be implemented without tons of legal issues.</div><div><br></div><div>So if we forget about that idea, we have a free market based on supply and demand and a temporary way to get new IPv4 from RIPE: opening new LIR accounts, which is quite controverted.</div><div><br></div><div>Whilst getting a /22 for every new LIR (not additional accounts) is IMHO a good thing for newcomers, once the last /8 is gone they will have to pay RIPE sign-up fees and then go to the market to get their… /24 maybe, and who knows how high prices will be some years ahead. In the opposite position, those who were storing IPv4 for years will be in the big business as they will hold the last /n of really unused IPv4 space and that won’t be transferred at the prices we are used today. </div><div><br></div><div>Do we really want this scenario? For years it’s been clear that we’ll transition to IPv6 once there is really no other solution, we’ll keep paying more and more for unused IPv4 space held by third parties until there’s simply no more IPv4 left and then, during the real IPv6 transition, those with less IPv4 reserves (a word we never wanted to hear in the policies) will suffer much more than those who paid to have more reserves before the real IPv4 depletion. In this model actual sole winners are those who had and/or bought IPv4 now and didn’t really use it to a sold it later. Pure speculation. Furthermore the model is also giving a competitive advantage to all organizations holding unused IPv4 because old inefficient assignment policies. That’s also unfair.</div><div><br></div><div>So my idea is, given these facts, why don’t let RIPE be the unique IPv4 market? If I recall correctly, we were told in the past that holding IPv4 space was not an ever-lasting right, space should be always in use and comply with all policies at the moment, and we shouldn’t charge end-users for the assignments made to them.</div><div><br></div><div>I’m not asking to propose those rules. Let’s say that currently allocated IPv4 space is a right-to-use as long as you’re a LIR disregarding its actual usage, and that membership fees will be kept in the same context (a bigger member may pay triple the smaller as a maximum). However transfer policies change to disallow transfers between members and set RIPE as the sole entity allowed to transfer IPv4 space to/from members. It could even work in a similar way to a stock market with a big difference: price is static and set by RIPE, and the goal is to maintain the price as stable as possible (ideally completely unchanged) until the full depletion of IPv4.</div><div><br></div><div>The idea behind is that, if RIPE impose a fixed price indefinitely both to sell and buy, sellers won’t wait till the depletion is closer and buyers will have a liquid market to buy from at a fixed price. This should transfer unused space to LIRs willing to use it and the losers will undoubtedly be speculators, which by the way no one wanted them in anything related to IP space management.</div><div><br></div><div>New LIRs would have to pay both for the sign-up fees and the purchase of their first allocation, thus discouraging the setup of unneeded new LIRs. However RIPE might give some queue priorities to certain groups like (real) newcomers or externally audited LIRs able to properly justify the urgency for new space.</div><div><br></div><div>The biggest contingency I see in this model is an early illiquid market, caused either because of many buyers wanting to buy all they can at lower market prices than today, or sellers unwilling to sell, in both cases because they really don’t believe in the model and they are hoping another policy change in a near future. To circumvent the contingency, current last /8 space could be reserved to newcomers (like it is today), and rest should open positions the sooner the better to match upcoming sellers. I believe that this model would redistribute currently unused IPv4 space to the parties that really need them, and ultimately would show everybody how far is IPv4’s end with much better accuracy. Add this to the fact that you’ll get back the same amount of money from your IPv4 no matter when you transition to IPv6, and then for many it might be worth starting the transition today instead of tomorrow.</div><div><br></div><div>By the way, the price per IPv4 I had in mind while writing this was about 4€, one-time, but could be changed especially in the beginning by RIPE to reach an ideal market liquidity. In the long run it shouldn’t be changed to leverage all advantages brought by the fixed price.</div><div><br></div><div>I’m surely missing many things related, and this is why I wondered to know if something like this has been already been discussed, as I would deem my post as a vague draft of the idea :)</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div>David.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Gert Doering <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gert@space.net" target="_blank">gert@space.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br> <br> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:46:26PM +0300, Host.AG wrote:<br> > The money can be then used to force the adoption of ipv6.<br> <br> How so? What can the RIPE NCC do, even with heaps of money, that they<br> are not doing today?<br> <br> - free IPv6 training? (done today)<br> - outreach activity to tell people about IPv6? (done today)<br> - encourage IPv6 when registering IPv4 blocks? (done today)<br> <br> if ISPs do not *want* to deploy IPv6, there is nothing the RIPE NCC can<br> do - even if you add some requirements ("you must have an IPv6 block,<br> it must be advertised, and your mail server must do IPv6!") people will<br> fulfill that to the letter - and stop there.<br> <br> The pressure needs to come from the community and from the peers - talk<br> to the content providers that have no IPv6 today. If you're a content<br> provider with IPv6, talk to the access providers that have no IPv6 today.<br> <br> If enough of you do that, possibly applying some mild pressure ("we're<br> slowing down our IPv4 access because our CGN is overloaded, so if you<br> want your content delivered over full speed, you need to use IPv6"),<br> things will move.<br> <br> Asking the RIPE NCC to solve the problem for you is what we tried for<br> the last 15 years, and while it got some results, this is not what needs<br> to happen next.<br> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br> Gert Doering<br> -- NetMaster<br> --<br> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?<br> <br> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard<br> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<br> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br> Tel: <a href="tel:%2B49%20%280%2989%2F32356-444" value="+498932356444">+49 (0)89/32356-444</a> USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br> </div></div><br>----<br> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss<br> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:<br> <a href="https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/</a><br> <br> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>