[address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Staff
office at ip4market.ru
Wed Jul 1 20:06:09 CEST 2015
fix in (3) correct number is 313/6671 is 4.6% On 01.07.2015 21:01, Staff wrote: > Greetings! > > We discussed internally and divided to write our arguments against > 2015-01 again in more clear way: > > 0) Very interesting discussion, people who see bad things in this > proposal write arguments and nobody listen to them, but people who say > ok - doesn't say anything. Not fair discussion! > > 1) This proposal is most profitable for RIPE NCC only and will make end > users to get IPs harder (not only from new lirs). > > 2) It doesn't close multi-LIR ability and that's normal. > > 3) People who says it's very profitable or so are mistaken. In other > case everyone can do that and them also, and they would be against this > proposal too, but it's not so as you may see. That's not so. New LIRs > ability is open for everyone and people (big IP owners) redistribute IPs > more easy. And in most cases it's easy and better then open LIRs. So the > fact is that new LIRs registration rate is the same as usual. > > Rate of LIRs is normal: > > Year Objects IPs %of /8 Rest Rest ip > 2012 779 797696 5% 95% 15979520 > 2013 1836 1880064 12% 83% 14099456 > 2014 2469 2534400 16% 67% 11565056 > 2015 1587 1643520 10% 57% 9921536 > Total: 6671 6855680 41% 59% 9921536 > > +RIPE free IPs pool is growing. > > total was 627 blocks only from 185.x transfered. > but total LIRs that get 185 blocks are and total 6671, its 9,3% > it's not significant. > > 3) The proposal should help market and companies to redistribute IPs > from the companies who don't need them to companies who needs them. > This proposal is against it. Because it may make more difficult possible > transfer = rise the market prices and speculations. We know the real > situations on the market and understand what's going on. > > If heads of this discussions and proposal doesn't listen here we bring > that up to the internet to show up in future why does that happen and > that statistics shows what we told. > > 4) As conclusion this proposal doesn't help to switch to IPv6. It only > helps to pull a cat by the balls. > > My conclusion: > - This proposal will not help redistributing and transfer IPs. And the > main reason for us - it will make other transfers harder (but not new > LIRs. Not much people need new lirs or small blocks but ability is good. > There is already limitation as block size /22. > > Yuri at Ip4market > > > > On 01.07.2015 12:10, Gert Doering wrote: >> hi, >> >> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:04:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: >>> Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not >>> matter. Right? >>> >>> If anybody supports this proposal *and write +1* his voice will >>> be counted, if don't he should write many arguments. >>> >>> May be someone doesn't like this text but this is the trooth. >> >> Please read up how the policy development process in the RIPE >> region works. >> >> We're in Last Call now, which means "any arguments that have been >> brought up and addressed in discussion and review phase are no >> longer interesting" (because we consider them to be addressed, and >> per Sander's summary, have reached rough consensus even if not >> everybody agrees). >> >> The Last Call phase is specifically there to bring up *new* >> arguments that have been overlooked before. >> >> Whether *I* agree with you or anyone else has nothing to do with >> how the PDP works - if the argument is not new, it is not >> interesting, and just noise on the list. If people insist on >> creating noise, they will be quietened. >> >> (Note that I'm also totally not interested in "support!" statements >> in this phase) >> >> Gert Doering -- APWG chair >> > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]