[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sylvain Vallerot
sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net
Mon Sep 23 18:24:49 CEST 2013
On 23/09/2013 16:23, Tore Anderson wrote: >> And LIRs could be tempted by selling these ressources without a need >> being properly justifying it. > > (I am assuming we are talking about an LIR's assignment to its End > User's here?) You are right, this is what this discussion is all about : documenting the needs is about assignments, which occurs between LIR and End Users. This is where conservation and needs-based policy make sens. > As above, why would you expect an End User to buy an assignment (in > itself, this is completely OK by today's policy BTW) if he has no need > for it? Because it is a good placement to survive, when you can get the ressource and others can't, they die and you survive. Being a CEO the survival of my company and its ability to have necessary ressources during scarcity periods is a main concern. Fortunately enough my business is not using much IP ressource. Several of my clients do however, and some would be glad to get a /22 to be more "in confidence", while they can hardly justify a /24. > It is already the case *today* that big and wealthy ISPs or corporations > with lots of money to spend has a huge advantage over small and > non-profit organisations. Yes but I do not want to see it worsen, because of... what for by the way? I did not retain many supporting arguments from the rationale. > Today, the RIPE NCC does not make a "priority" list over organisations > that are eligible for transfers. In other words, the RIPE NCC will do > *nothing* to help the small/non-profit organisations to get what they > need from the available market offerings before the big and wealthy ones > gets to scoop up the rest. The small and non-profit organisations are on > their own, and they are already today in a pretty hopeless situation. Which is bad enough. > The only way I can see that 2013-03 would worsen the environment we > already have, is if those that have no need for IPv4 address space > suddenly starts wanting it and trying to buy it. I just do not see why > that would happen. Because 2013-03 allows it : End Users won't have to justify their needs anymore. Simple as that. Might not happen (in a perfect world), but do we choose the right timing to open such a pandora's box here ? And again, for what benefit ? Just spare a little time on documentation. > FWIW, the only reason why "need" is being removed for transfers, > is that when you remove "need" for assignments (which *is* the goal), > "need" at the allocation level becomes a meaningless concept, because > the latter builds on the former. Of course, yes (except for the goal). BTW it works the other way round : would you allow wasting of allocations (obviously last /8 policy does not) ? if not, you should not allow wasting of assignments. Simple logic. A->B is equivalent to /B->/A Best regards, Sylvain
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]