You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > RIPE Forum
RIPE Forum v1.4.1

Address Policy Working Group

Threaded
Collapse

[address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2020-10-28 13:05:01 CET

Hi all,
 
After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it deserves some discussion.

The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization.

We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?

In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ... not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs.

In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not really using it.

However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.

I clearly think this is not a good thing.

It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria, and exactly here:
b) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years.

So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not "verified" and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it verified are too small?

Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?

Other ideas?

Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra space may be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal activities and we have a responsibility on that as a community.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





Nick Hilliard

2020-10-28 13:08:55 CET

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:
> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more
> IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and
> thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
[...]
> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?

tl;dr: no.

Nick

User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2020-10-28 13:13:13 CET

Hi Nick,

Could you explain why not?

Clearly it is something that should part of the NCC verification duties, but we have been told several times, in other policy proposals, that we need to make it explicit so they can "act".

Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling?

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> escribió:

    JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:
    > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more
    > IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and
    > thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
    [...]
    > Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?

    tl;dr: no.

    Nick




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





User Image

Sergey Myasoedov

2020-10-28 13:20:20 CET

Hi Jordi,

> Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling?

A 'stockpiling' on the obsoleted resource is a result of semi-free market. Just let the IPv4 go, and market and technology will do the rest.

And yes, I am the market player.

--
Kind regards,
Sergey Myasoedov


> On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Nick,
> 
> Could you explain why not?
> 
> Clearly it is something that should part of the NCC verification duties, but we have been told several times, in other policy proposals, that we need to make it explicit so they can "act".
> 
> Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling?
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> escribió:
> 
>    JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:
>> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more
>> IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and
>> thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
>    [...]
>> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
> 
>    tl;dr: no.
> 
>    Nick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2020-10-28 13:25:45 CET

Hi Sergey,

Note that I'm not intending to change anything on IPv4 ...

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 28/10/20 13:20, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Sergey Myasoedov via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> escribió:

    Hi Jordi,

    > Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling?

    A 'stockpiling' on the obsoleted resource is a result of semi-free market. Just let the IPv4 go, and market and technology will do the rest.

    And yes, I am the market player.

    --
    Kind regards,
    Sergey Myasoedov


    > On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi Nick,
    > 
    > Could you explain why not?
    > 
    > Clearly it is something that should part of the NCC verification duties, but we have been told several times, in other policy proposals, that we need to make it explicit so they can "act".
    > 
    > Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling?
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > @jordipalet
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> escribió:
    > 
    >    JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:
    >> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more
    >> IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and
    >> thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
    >    [...]
    >> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
    > 
    >    tl;dr: no.
    > 
    >    Nick
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > http://www.theipv6company.com
    > The IPv6 Company
    > 
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 





**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





Elvis Daniel Velea

2020-10-28 13:32:32 CET

Hi Jordi,

what is the problem you want to solve? 

Is the ‘IPv6 stockpiling’ creating any issues?

As far as I know, we have plenty of IPv6 available and by forcing return or imposing conditions on mergers/transfers you only create hurdles for the people that actually use IPv6.

I’d say this is a non problem and actually advise RIPE NCC RS to stop tracking/presenting on this unless this issue causes them complications in justifying additional allocation requests from the IANA.

Elvis 

Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.

> On Oct 28, 2020, at 05:26, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sergey,
> 
> Note that I'm not intending to change anything on IPv4 ...
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 28/10/20 13:20, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Sergey Myasoedov via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> escribió:
> 
>    Hi Jordi,
> 
>> Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling?
> 
>    A 'stockpiling' on the obsoleted resource is a result of semi-free market. Just let the IPv4 go, and market and technology will do the rest.
> 
>    And yes, I am the market player.
> 
>    --
>    Kind regards,
>    Sergey Myasoedov
> 
> 
>> On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Nick,
>> 
>> Could you explain why not?
>> 
>> Clearly it is something that should part of the NCC verification duties, but we have been told several times, in other policy proposals, that we need to make it explicit so they can "act".
>> 
>> Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> @jordipalet
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> escribió:
>> 
>>   JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:
>>> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more
>>> IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and
>>> thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
>>   [...]
>>> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
>> 
>>   tl;dr: no.
>> 
>>   Nick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>> The IPv6 Company
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

User Image

Aleksey Bulgakov

2020-10-28 13:33:26 CET

Hi all.

What's bad if someone has several /29 IPv6? Are they running out? How many
IPv6 has each RIR? In total the mount of IPv4  is about 4.29 billions
against IPv6 with the mount 3.4*10^38.

I understand that the NCC tries to find additional funds and implements
additional restrictions to force their members to make additional spending.
But we should carefully implement new policies.

---
Kind regards,
Alex


ср, 28 окт. 2020 г., 14:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <
address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net>:

> Hi all,
>
> After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to
> resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it
> deserves some discussion.
>
> The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to
> align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization.
>
> We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on
> justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really
> justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a
> trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?
>
> In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ...
> not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get
> more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs.
>
> In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the
> membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size
> of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it
> seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not
> really using it.
>
> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4
> allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus
> stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
>
> I clearly think this is not a good thing.
>
> It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial allocation
> criteria, and exactly here:
> b) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or
> End Site assignments within two years.
>
> So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not "verified"
> and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it verified are too
> small?
>
> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
>
> Other ideas?
>
> Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra space may
> be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal activities and we have a
> responsibility on that as a community.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2020-10-28 13:39:38 CET

Hi Elvis & Aleksey (to avoid one extra email),

As said, it is a matter of responsibility. I'm not the NCC, neither work for them. I think it is a community matter and there is a clear principle here: "justified need".

I also agree that the justification can't be too strict, but there is always a right balance point.

If an organization has 20 LIRs and they can *justify the need* even for a /12 for each LIR, I'm *perfectly fine* with that.

What I don't think is right is that we bypass the justified need. If we want to do that, let's remove it from all the policies.
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 28/10/20 13:32, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Elvis Daniel Velea" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de elvis _at_ velea _dot_ eu> escribió:

    Hi Jordi,

    what is the problem you want to solve? 

    Is the ‘IPv6 stockpiling’ creating any issues?

    As far as I know, we have plenty of IPv6 available and by forcing return or imposing conditions on mergers/transfers you only create hurdles for the people that actually use IPv6.

    I’d say this is a non problem and actually advise RIPE NCC RS to stop tracking/presenting on this unless this issue causes them complications in justifying additional allocation requests from the IANA.

    Elvis 

    Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.

    > On Oct 28, 2020, at 05:26, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi Sergey,
    > 
    > Note that I'm not intending to change anything on IPv4 ...
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > @jordipalet
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > El 28/10/20 13:20, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Sergey Myasoedov via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> escribió:
    > 
    >    Hi Jordi,
    > 
    >> Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling?
    > 
    >    A 'stockpiling' on the obsoleted resource is a result of semi-free market. Just let the IPv4 go, and market and technology will do the rest.
    > 
    >    And yes, I am the market player.
    > 
    >    --
    >    Kind regards,
    >    Sergey Myasoedov
    > 
    > 
    >> On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
    >> 
    >> Hi Nick,
    >> 
    >> Could you explain why not?
    >> 
    >> Clearly it is something that should part of the NCC verification duties, but we have been told several times, in other policy proposals, that we need to make it explicit so they can "act".
    >> 
    >> Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling?
    >> 
    >> Regards,
    >> Jordi
    >> @jordipalet
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> escribió:
    >> 
    >>   JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:
    >>> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more
    >>> IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and
    >>> thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
    >>   [...]
    >>> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
    >> 
    >>   tl;dr: no.
    >> 
    >>   Nick
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> **********************************************
    >> IPv4 is over
    >> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >> http://www.theipv6company.com
    >> The IPv6 Company
    >> 
    >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > http://www.theipv6company.com
    > The IPv6 Company
    > 
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





User Image

Cynthia Revström

2020-10-28 13:46:35 CET

Hi,

While I will admit it's a bit odd to allocate that much v6 space to a
single entity, I don't see how this is going to cause issues based on what
is currently happening, like this is not happening at scale.

Sure there might be a /21 (256x /29) of IPv6 space assigned to LIRs who
already had a /29. but there are many large ISPs who alone have more space
than this. Telia has a /20, China Telecom has a /16.

Additionally there is no real incentive to request multiple /29s other than
very rare cases. unless LIRs requesting like 16x /29s are a common
occurrence, this is a non issue imo.

disclaimer: I do have 3x /29 for a reason that may seem like a waste to
some people and my specific issue could probably be solved by RIPE allowing
me to split my /29 into /32s.

-Cynthia

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, <
address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to
> resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it
> deserves some discussion.
>
> The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to
> align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization.
>
> We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on
> justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really
> justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a
> trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?
>
> In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ...
> not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get
> more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs.
>
> In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the
> membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size
> of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it
> seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not
> really using it.
>
> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4
> allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus
> stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
>
> I clearly think this is not a good thing.
>
> It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial allocation
> criteria, and exactly here:
> b) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or
> End Site assignments within two years.
>
> So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not "verified"
> and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it verified are too
> small?
>
> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
>
> Other ideas?
>
> Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra space may
> be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal activities and we have a
> responsibility on that as a community.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
User Image

Mikael Abrahamsson

2020-10-28 13:54:09 CET

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:

> We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on 
> justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really 
> justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it 
> as a trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?

My only concern here is routing table size over time, and it's not a very 
big concern of mine. One area that perhaps could be optimized is to have 
some kind of process where if someone is merging multiple LIRs and they're 
not yet using some of the /29, they might be given the option to hand back 
address space and receive a larger, contiguous address block if they so 
choose.

If we give 65k ASNs a /29 each, this is a /13 worth of addresses. This is 
not a concern, addresswise.

Routing table wise, if this can be cut in half or something, could be 
worth doing.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike _at_ swm.pp _dot_ se

Nick Hilliard

2020-10-28 14:03:21 CET

Hi Jordi,

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:13:
> Could you explain why not?

because the purpose of a registry is to ensure accurate registration 
information rather than to micromanage resources.  As far as I can see, 
the RIPE NCC is doing its job here and there's no need to instruct it to 
go off and do something else.

There's no shortage of ipv6 address space and no reason to think that we 
will ever end up with a future shortage.  So there is no reason for 
people to treat ipv6 address blocks as having future scarcity value, 
which means that there is no motivation to "stockpile".  I.e. the entire 
basis of your argument is void.

Nick

Jim Reid

2020-10-28 14:07:16 CET


> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:08, Nick Hilliard <nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
> 
> tl;dr: no.

+1


User Image

Maximilian Wilhelm

2020-10-28 14:12:26 CET

Anno domini 2020 Nick Hilliard scripsit:

> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:
> > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more
> > IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and
> > thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
> [...]
> > Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
> 
> tl;dr: no.

What he said.

Best
Max
-- 
"Wer nicht mehr liebt und nicht mehr irrt, der lasse sich begraben."
 -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Jim Reid

2020-10-28 14:16:43 CET


> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
> 
> I clearly think this is not a good thing.

Why? What actual problems is this alleged stockpiling causing? Is there any v6 stockpiling taking place? Why would anyone need/want to stockpile v6 when the *lowest* allocation they’d get gives them orders of magnitude more address space than they could ever hope to use.

I think the onus is on you to provide a clear problem statement before making policy proposals. It’s not at all clear there’s an actual problem to solve.


User Image

Cynthia Revström

2020-10-28 14:18:17 CET

Jordi,

> Exactly, that’s the point, there is no incentive – the only incentive is
stockpiling,

This was not at all my point, my point was that there is no incentive to
stockpile IPv6 addresses.

This is not a real issue, this is just trying to add more bureaucracy for
no reason.

-Cynthia

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:51 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, <
address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:

> Hi Cynthia,
>
>
>
> Exactly, that’s the point, there is no incentive – the only incentive is
> stockpiling, just in case IPv6 becomes scarse and may create a problem like
> the lack of IPv4, even if this takes 30 years, or 100 years, and you want
> to secure the funding of the kids of your kids by having a resource that
> then, will be subjected to market price and transfers.
>
>
>
> If I understood correctly from Nikolas presentation (please, correct me if
> I’m wrong), the bigger ISPs, typically have a single LIR with a big
> allocation, but they don’t have (because they aren’t typically interested
> in games, just justified need), multiple LIRs with multiple IPv6
> allocations (or at least not big ones).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
> El 28/10/20 13:47, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Cynthia Revström via
> address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de
> address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> While I will admit it's a bit odd to allocate that much v6 space to a
> single entity, I don't see how this is going to cause issues based on what
> is currently happening, like this is not happening at scale.
>
>
>
> Sure there might be a /21 (256x /29) of IPv6 space assigned to LIRs who
> already had a /29. but there are many large ISPs who alone have more space
> than this. Telia has a /20, China Telecom has a /16.
>
>
>
> Additionally there is no real incentive to request multiple /29s other
> than very rare cases. unless LIRs requesting like 16x /29s are a common
> occurrence, this is a non issue imo.
>
>
>
> disclaimer: I do have 3x /29 for a reason that may seem like a waste to
> some people and my specific issue could probably be solved by RIPE allowing
> me to split my /29 into /32s.
>
>
>
> -Cynthia
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, <
> address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to
> resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it
> deserves some discussion.
>
> The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to
> align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization.
>
> We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on
> justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really
> justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a
> trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?
>
> In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ...
> not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get
> more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs.
>
> In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the
> membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size
> of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it
> seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not
> really using it.
>
> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4
> allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus
> stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
>
> I clearly think this is not a good thing.
>
> It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial allocation
> criteria, and exactly here:
> b) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or
> End Site assignments within two years.
>
> So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not "verified"
> and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it verified are too
> small?
>
> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
>
> Other ideas?
>
> Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra space may
> be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal activities and we have a
> responsibility on that as a community.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
User Image

Sebastian Wiesinger

2020-10-28 14:20:40 CET

* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> [2020-10-28 13:06]:
> It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial
> allocation criteria, and exactly here: b) have a plan for making
> sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments
> within two years.
> 
> So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not
> "verified" and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it
> verified are too small?

The "bad guys" could just add assignments and the plan is verified.

The fundamental question is, why would "bad guys" want to stockpile
IPv6 in any way that would hurt us as a community? What would be the
ROI for them?

I see this as a non-problem.


> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?

No.

> Other ideas?

Just leave it as it is until we actually have a problem or can see a
problem arising.

> Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra
> space may be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal
> activities and we have a responsibility on that as a community.

Well as long as filtering and RPKI is not perfect this can be done
with a lot of other address space without leaving your contact data
with the RIPE NCC.


Regards

Sebastian

-- 
GPG Key: 0x58A2D94A93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
            -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

Jim Reid

2020-10-28 14:38:01 CET


> On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:18, Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> This is not a real issue, this is just trying to add more bureaucracy for no reason.

+1

IMO this proposal is an utterly pointless and unnecessary make-work exercise. There’s no justification for it.



Jim Reid

2020-10-28 14:43:29 CET


> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:51, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> Exactly, that’s the point, there is no incentive – the only incentive is stockpiling, just in case IPv6 becomes scarse and may create a problem like the lack of IPv4, even if this takes 30 years, or 100 years, and you want to secure the funding of the kids of your kids by having a resource that then, will be subjected to market price and transfers.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Why isn’t *anyone* worrying about the Y10K problem? I demand action! :-)

PS The “won't someone think of the children?” emotional rhetoric is a very strong indication someone doesn’t have an evidence-based argument.


Kai 'wusel' Siering

2020-10-28 14:51:12 CET

On 28.10.20 14:16, Jim Reid wrote:
> […] It’s not at all clear there’s an actual problem to solve. 

This.

Regards,
-kai

Jim Reid

2020-10-28 14:51:27 CET


> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:39, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> What I don't think is right is that we bypass the justified need. 

The notion of justified need makes no sense for IPv6. An ISP might give my mum a /64 or a /80. There’s no way she can demonstrate a *need* for so much address space. It’s at least a billion times more space than she could credibly use. 

Please stop trying to impose now dead IPv4 mindsets on IPv6.


User Image

David Farmer

2020-10-28 14:56:06 CET

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 07:09 Nick Hilliard <nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> wrote:

> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:
> > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more
> > IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and
> > thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
> [...]
> > Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
>
> tl;dr: no.
>
> Nick
>
>
There has never been a requirement to announce address blocks, private use
of globally unique addressing is sufficient reason for an allocation in my
opinion.  Addresses don’t have to be announced to be in use.

However, as a matter of basic principle, I think there should be a simple
policy statement that completely unused address blocks should be returned
to the original allocating RIR, especially if there are no plans to use the
address blocks in the foreseeable future, but I don’t believe there needs
to be any organized enforcement actions of this basic principle for IPv6 at
this time, maybe several decades in the future some level of enforcement
could become necessary and prudent. Nevertheless, having this basic
principle in policy for several decades before it is needed would prevent
any arguments to the contrary, when or if the time for such enforcement
ever comes.

Thanks


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer _at_ umn _dot_ edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
User Image

Jacob Slater

2020-10-28 14:59:11 CET

Jordi,

Is there currently an instance of mass IPv6 hoarding occurring? Not a
theoretical – an actual instance. Requiring justification for all
allocations was required under IPv4 because there was a motivation to
hoard that simply doesn’t exist under IPv6. With IPv4, we foresaw a
shortage – and thus a motivation for hoarding – long before it
happened. RFC 1883, the first IPv6 definition, was published in 1995
and cites “Expanded Addressing Capabilities” as the first major change
category.

Requiring an allocation to be justified is not the baseline; it is an
imposed requirement. It wasn’t imposed for initial /29 allocations to
prevent most LIRs from having to spend time justifying a resource that
isn’t that scarce, saving both the LIR and the NCC some time and
effort. If this results in a LIR ending up with a few /29s in
aggregate, I don’t really see a problem – the resource just isn’t that
limited.

Regards,
Jacob Slater


On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:52 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
>
> Hi Cynthia,
>
>
>
> Exactly, that’s the point, there is no incentive – the only incentive is stockpiling, just in case IPv6 becomes scarse and may create a problem like the lack of IPv4, even if this takes 30 years, or 100 years, and you want to secure the funding of the kids of your kids by having a resource that then, will be subjected to market price and transfers.
>
>
>
> If I understood correctly from Nikolas presentation (please, correct me if I’m wrong), the bigger ISPs, typically have a single LIR with a big allocation, but they don’t have (because they aren’t typically interested in games, just justified need), multiple LIRs with multiple IPv6 allocations (or at least not big ones).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
> El 28/10/20 13:47, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> While I will admit it's a bit odd to allocate that much v6 space to a single entity, I don't see how this is going to cause issues based on what is currently happening, like this is not happening at scale.
>
>
>
> Sure there might be a /21 (256x /29) of IPv6 space assigned to LIRs who already had a /29. but there are many large ISPs who alone have more space than this. Telia has a /20, China Telecom has a /16.
>
>
>
> Additionally there is no real incentive to request multiple /29s other than very rare cases. unless LIRs requesting like 16x /29s are a common occurrence, this is a non issue imo.
>
>
>
> disclaimer: I do have 3x /29 for a reason that may seem like a waste to some people and my specific issue could probably be solved by RIPE allowing me to split my /29 into /32s.
>
>
>
> -Cynthia
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it deserves some discussion.
>
> The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization.
>
> We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?
>
> In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ... not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs.
>
> In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not really using it.
>
> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
>
> I clearly think this is not a good thing.
>
> It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria, and exactly here:
> b) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years.
>
> So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not "verified" and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it verified are too small?
>
> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
>
> Other ideas?
>
> Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra space may be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal activities and we have a responsibility on that as a community.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>

User Image

Paul Thornton

2020-10-28 15:24:32 CET

On 28/10/2020 13:03, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Hi Jordi,
>
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:13:
>> Could you explain why not?
>
> because the purpose of a registry is to ensure accurate registration 
> information rather than to micromanage resources.  As far as I can 
> see, the RIPE NCC is doing its job here and there's no need to 
> instruct it to go off and do something else.
>
> There's no shortage of ipv6 address space and no reason to think that 
> we will ever end up with a future shortage.  So there is no reason for 
> people to treat ipv6 address blocks as having future scarcity value, 
> which means that there is no motivation to "stockpile".  I.e. the 
> entire basis of your argument is void.

+1.

I also strongly believe that there is no real problem to solve here.

Paul.


Daniel Karrenberg

2020-10-28 15:51:40 CET

RIPE NCC staff member


On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:

> I understand that the NCC tries to find additional funds and implements
> additional restrictions to force their members to make additional spending.

The RIPE NCC does not do that.

Daniel

User Image

Daniel Suchy

2020-10-28 20:12:08 CET

Hello,
some  of these "stockpilled" IPv6 blocks are just result of merges and 
acquisitions. Business structure changes are happening on regular basis.

I don't think there's real problem with LIRs holding multiple /29s. And 
I'm against any additional bureaucracy just due to hypothetical saving 
of few IPv6 blocks (it will cost too much time/money at NCC side).

In addition, we still need to *promote* IPv6 usage.  It's not a good 
idea to scare LIRS with risk of renumbering their networks due to "too 
many resources held" after the acquisition happened...

Let's keep things simple. This topic seeks for problem where no real 
problem exists.

- Daniel


On 10/28/20 1:05 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> Hi all,
>   
> After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it deserves some discussion.
> 
> The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization.
> 
> We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?
> 
> In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ... not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs.
> 
> In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not really using it.
> 
> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
> 
> I clearly think this is not a good thing.
> 
> It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria, and exactly here:
> b) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years.
> 
> So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not "verified" and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it verified are too small?
> 
> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
> 
> Other ideas?
> 
> Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra space may be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal activities and we have a responsibility on that as a community.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>