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

Hi Erik,

Well stated. I also congratulate Elvis for volunteering to do this work 
for the community.

John Springer

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Erik Bais wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>