[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Daniel Velea
elvis at velea.eu
Tue Oct 20 17:49:10 CEST 2015
Hi Remco, On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote: > Hi all, > > (no hats) > > I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need more than the default /22. Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a similar policy and it seems to be working just fine. > For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months. > > Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive? This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations already received. I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via the transfer market is really high). - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended. > > Remco > > * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. > **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. > cheers, Elvis >> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", >> is now available for discussion. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 >> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 18 November 2015. >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]