[address-policy-wg] agreement

On Mon, 9 May 2016, Sander Steffann wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
>> My main objection to this proposal is simple:  It depletes the available
>> pool for _new_ participants faster.  I strongly believe any new actor
>> should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available
>> from RIPE.  For an actor with non-zero addresses to get more addresses,
>> there is a secondary market.
>
> Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years 
> with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22".
>
>> Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a
>> middle ground can be met.  Based on my understanding of the other
>> objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the
>> objection side.
>
> Well, to make a useful discussion possible I think it's important to 
> look at the timescales. A policy that changes expected depletion from 
> e.g. 100 years to 90 years might not be a problem, but other timescales 
> will definitely be a problem.
>
> I think the timescale I have heard that people would find acceptable is 
> *at least* 5 to 10 years. If you look at the minutes of RIPE 70 
> (https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-70) you'll see 
> a statement from RIPE NCC when discussing this policy proposal that "the 
> RIPE NCC?s IPv4 pool was expected to last for around five years.".
>
>> I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any
>> solution can be proposed.
>
> The stated expected timescale already seems to be around the bare 
> minimum lifetime that is accepted, and much less than what many people 
> would like. I therefore have to agree that any proposal that shortens 
> that lifetime even further will very probably not get consensus.
>
> Someone would need to come up with a radical new idea to get out of the 
> current deadlock. Which is why I urge all new participants in this 
> discussion to read the mailing list archives so they can get the full 
> current picture before they propose a solution.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander


Very well written Sander. I Completely agree with you.

Cheers,
Daniel

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 45 094							      556741-1193
104 30 Stockholm