[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi,

> I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes.

I wouldn't want to bring this subject but it seems that most of the
people are looking at the problems witht the eyes shut.

Let me give you an example:

 - 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012
 - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012
 - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012

All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During that
time I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6
deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17
and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval for
such a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it).

Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and is
now a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out for
millions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders of
the last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCC
noticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anything
about it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as I
said, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'll
have to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten in
Netherlands.

> The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently disappear.

If RIPE NCC would present to the community the problems they see, maybe
we could come up with some policies to prevent them. But we should not
waste the energy on small, irrelevant problems.

> So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more restrictive policy"

I think it is an important argument. Doing something that has no
positive effect is just smoke that makes some of us sleep better while
the problems might become worse.

Ciprian