[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:57:04PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> While I expressed support for this proposal at the last RIPE meeting, and
> still have some sympathy for the proposal, I think valid objectionsn were
> raised at the last meeting. .
> 
> As the free pool is gone - and there are no more 'unused addresses' to
> preserve - there is still a need for responsibe use of the IPv4 pool.
>  Conserving the public resource of v4 is important to make the Internet
> work while migrating to v6.

I agree with you, but how does this proposal change this in your view?

The "allocations from the last /8" policy is only slightly changed, as
"need" does not need to be documented anymore - but then, the policy 
always assumed that every single RIPE member would eventually call up 
on their last /22 allocation, and that every new RIPE member would also 
ask for that, so the effective difference is small (some members would
be able to ask for the /22 before reaching 80% on their previous 
allocation, but they would still only get a single /22, so the 
estimation "how long is the last /8 going to last" still mainly depends
on the number of new LIRs created).

On the LIR-to-customer level, LIRs should be well aware now that the 
IPv4 space they have might be all they will reasonably get in the 
foreseeable time, so they have a strong incentive already to give only 
those addresses to their customers that are really needed - but forcing 
them to stick to some arbitrary time scale and specific forms for that 
is really "needless bureaucracy" today.


> It was unfortunate that this discussion was cut short at the last meeting -
> as the original meeting plan allowed ample time for discussing this.
> 
> So I do belive further duiscussion and carefull reflection of the
> consequences of this proposal at the next meeting is needed.

As we do not do decisions at meetings, I'm not convinced that this is
a useful excercise.

Meetings are good to quickly get feedback, and some discussion going, 
but if objections are not raised here on the list, they do not exist
(of course we listen to reasonable objections raised at the meeting, but 
the main feedback we got *from the RIPE region* was "go ahead!").

If there's a worry that this proposal is not getting enough scrutiny due
to holiday time, I'm willing to extend the review period somewhat - but
given the amount of explicit "support" and "+1" statements it already
got, compared to the typical amount of participation in the review period,
I can't say that it looks like everybody is on vacation...

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130717/b6f30a54/attachment.sig>