[routing-wg] Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme

There are two FACTS that we should keep in mind separately:

a) the fact that we need an IPv6 migration path (and good motivation)
for large systems
b) the fact that IPv4 is a scarse resource

Regarding b) to me it sounds normal and logical that, for scarse
resources, the more you request the more you pay. If we have a cake with
8 slices and 8 kids (poor and rich ones) we cannot decide that if one
kid gets the whole cake he will pay LESS.... The more you request, the
more you will pay.

Regarding point a), I am still curious to know why large ISP did not
migrate towards IPv6. Usually when asked about it in the past, the
answer I have heard was "we have no reason to move toward IPv6,
commercially speaking we have no reason to do it..."

Just to give you an idea, 2 years ago (not sure about now), the peering
situation in Italy was that small and medium ISPs were doing native IPv6
peering while large ones were not supporting IPv6 or doing it via tunnels.

Considering that most of the content stays on the large ISP (p2p and
other content (NOTE1) ) even if a small/medium ISP migrates its
customers towards IPv6, it will be useless 95% of the content will still
be on the IPv4 word.


(NOTE1)
1) large providers have many customers, and many customers means a lot
of national p2p traffic. In regions where English is not the national
language, the p2p content is "localized with the national language" and
that means that the p2p traffic stays on the national network.

2) large providers are also content providers: email, VoD, etc is
running on their network.

> Let me describe the situation from my point of view.
> 
> I think that it is not LARGE members who must be putting forward to
>  deploy IPv6, but exactly a MEDIUM/SMALL. Assuming LARGE members as
>  a (mostly) IP transit operators and M/S as a broadband access, we
>  get an exactly "IPv6 chicken-and-the-egg" problem. In our region,
>  we have enough IPv6 transit operators (most of whom are LARGE),
>  but *no* broadband access IPv6 providers. As I see, providing pure IPv6
>  transit is much more easy/cheap than deploying broadband access IPv6
>  networks - and that's the main issue. Well, if we will reduce IPv4
>  cost for small holders and increase it for large ones, we'll get
>  nothing in terms of "IPv6 popularization". There still will be
>  empty pipes and no content.
> 
> Don't get me wrong and don't blame me as an "LARGE snob" - I consider
>  wiwi model/proposal as fair, but I don't think it could be an elixir for
>  IPv6 development. It is the shortage of IPv4 space that will be the
>  reason, not the "price of IPv4" (and the IPv4 black markets, if any,
>  will regulate themselves).
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
>  Ivan M.Makarenko, Head of Internet technologies division, R&D Department.
>  JSC "Zap-SibTranstelecom", Novosibirsk, Russia
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message  --------
> Subject: Re:[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
> From: DegNet GmbH - Hostmaster <hostmaster at degnet-gmbh.de>
> To: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Date: Mon Aug 08 2011 20:09:38 GMT+0700
> 
>> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote Saturday, August 06, 2011 3:14 PM
>>> a flatrate billing model and ditching that 2007-01 policy would indeed,
>>> be preferred over more complex methods.
>>>
>>
>> I would also prefer a Flatfee for every RIPE member including all
>> services without any "discrimination" (like PI assignment fee, extra
>> pricing for additional ASN, ...) in combination with a price per IPv4
>> address for LIRs holding more than /12 addresses.
>>
>> As extra large members control the core Internet infrastructure and do
>> profit in a large scale from the current infrastructure these
>> companies should have a strong motivation on putting forward the IPv6
>> deployment.
>>
>> The current charging scheme results in the opposite in my opinion:
>> Large and extra large RIPE members currently do not seem to have any
>> motivation to move forward to IPv6 as they currently benefit the most
>> from the sneaking shortage of IPv4 resources on holding most of these
>> (resources and reserves) by now.
>> 40k or 0,00236...€ per IP (wiwi proposal) are less than peanuts for
>> extra large companies.
>>
>> 0,02-0,05€ per IP for extra large members sounds more reasonable for
>> me and should lead to a strong step toward IPv6, soon.
>> The funds of this charge for extra large IPv4 resource holders could
>> be spend purposive on IPv6 deployment.
>>
>> -Florian
>>
>> !��'����+yǢ��j)l~�&�� �
>> )�����جr�,����x%��i��zZ �{hʋ�,�O��Z��
���jw`��-��
��ږ��z
>> m����*颻Z���zw���z�����)brJ'ح�"�E׭j)l�w^�+����m�Lj)b������z����
>> ��]��ޚ��i�kz�
s===
> 
> ----
> 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:
> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
> 
> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From
> here, you can add or remove addresses.
> 


-- 


Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale

Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo

C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
Fax : +39-091-8772072
assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
web: http://www.level7.it



----
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:
https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view

Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.