[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

Relatively high price kept /8 from exhaustion. But if the proposal
will be approved, resellers can change their business and start to
consult providers about IPv4 receiving that accelerate exhaustion and
new internet businesses won't have enough IPv4 allocations.

Surely it will stimulate to implement IPv6 networks. But the process
is very slow. And many higher providers still use IPv4 equipment.

What do you think about it?

2015-04-23 19:39 GMT+03:00 Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk>:
> Well said Erik, and +1 to the proposal
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais
> Sent: 23 April 2015 17:33
> To: 'Milton L Mueller'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; 'Vladimir Andreev'
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
>
> Hi Milton,
>
>> Erik:
>> Have you responded to the analysis of Vladimir Andreev which shows that
> the impact of this practice is minimal?
>
>> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
> Behalf Of Erik Bais
>> The goal of this proposal is to stop the abuse of opening a new LIR,
> transferring the /22 for profit to another LIR and close the LIR.
>> As it is against the original intent of the final /8 last /22 procedure
>  (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51 )
>
> But I'll gladly reply to it ..
>
> His analyses goes wrong at the following line :
>
>> Looking at listed items I can suppose either Elvis is angry at people
> earning money or really /22 reselling is bad for RIPE and its community.
>
> That is a false assumption and an incorrect stab in the back at Elvis, a
> well known community member, who stepped up at the last RIPE meeting and
> offered to write the proposal after the RIPE NCC pointed out that they have
> seen an increase in this practice and are warning about this as a new
> practice which is against the intent of the actual policy.
>
> As a broker and a community member myself, having written several policies
> myself, what one might do for the community, may not always align with
> someone their business processes.
> I've written the policy to allow RPKI for NON-Members .. A policy to remove
> the multi-homing requirement for PI IPv6 .. a policy to allow the transfer
> of IPv6 prefixes ..
> I think that I can safely say that it is a cheap stab in the back to even
> HINT ... that personal agenda's are behind this proposal .. There is more at
> stake here than a the business we do (out-side the RIPE mailing list or RIPE
> meetings.. )  and the one that is paying our mortgage ... either as an ISP
> or a broker. . .
>
> Stating that brokers are behind it ... and that getting IP's via a sign-up
> of a new LIR is something that is hurting the broker business ... that is
> just false.
> I know most of the brokers in the community ... and I agree with Vladimir in
> his analysis .. this has less than minimal impact ... ( as I see it with a
> broker hat on .. )
>
> The intent for the reservation from the final /8 is for new companies to
> start an ISP in the next 6 to 10 years .. is why this was put into the
> policy ... Because it is close to impossible to start without ANY ipv4 ..
> And as a bit it more than nothing .. that is why this has been put into
> policy ..  Simply because you can't do any CGNAT .. if you don't have ANY
> IPv4 ... This way at least you have an option .. besides building a v6 only
> network.
>
> The fact that Vladimir points out that the policy CURRENTLY may not be
> abused as much as one might think ... that does not mean that for the cases
> where it is clearly abused... it didn't happen.
>
> I think that reading the discussion at the mailing list .. that the intent
> of some of the people in this community as different as one might hope for..
>
> Personally I don't care if people are going to open a new LIR for themselves
> or if they are going to use the gained resources in order to sell them ...
>
> What I do care about is that the reason why the initial reservation was done
> in the first place .. from that final /8.. with all good and noble
> intentions of the proposers at that time ... has now become a cheap loophole
> for some to be used for their own benefit, with the possible side-effect
> that others in this very same community will be left out in the future,
> because we did plan for new entries .. but didn't care enough to fix the
> loopholes we noticed down the line.
>
> Will this proposal fix the issue to dis-allow a second /22 from the final /8
> in the same LIR ? Nope. It is still possible to get a /22 transferred into
> an LIR that already holds a /22 from the final /8.
> And it is will also still be possible to do a M&A of an LIR into another LIR
> .. and then you will also have 2 * a /22 from the final /8 ...
>
> So is it perfect ?  No ...
>
> But .. will it make the initial intent of the policy more clear ? or will it
> move the policy into the right direction ?  YES ...
> Will this have a significant impact on slowing down the consumption rate of
> the actual reserved pool in the final /8 ?  Not really .. Similar as
> proposing to revoke all un-routed IPv4 space back to the RIR .. and start
> re-issuing it ...
> That only delays the inevitable ....  APNIC is out, RIPE is out ... ARIN is
> down to the last .23 of their final /8 ... There is no future in IPv4 beyond
> 7 years ... ( Is my humble guess.. )
>
> Who knows .. the next Whatsapp or Twitter might come from that one company
> that registers as an LIR in that delayed 4 weeks because of this proposal
> ...
>
> So, to close of the argument here ..  kudo's to Elvis for writing the
> proposal ..  I'm glad to see that it is going to be fixed, because it is the
> right thing to do..
>
> Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
>
> Regards,
> Erik Bais
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
>



-- 
----------
Best regards,
Aleksey Bulgakov
Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29