[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Confusion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Sun Oct 8 10:19:02 CEST 2017
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017, Riccardo Gori wrote: > Hi Carlos, Hi Riccardo, All, > sorry for the late reply I was out for work. > > I'll reply only to your question "> Fix IPv6 rate adoption by policy? " > Carlos, this policy proposal aims to fix IPv4 rate depletion... so why don't use a policy for "rate adoption"? do you see any difference? Yes, i see a clear difference. The RIPE community can approve/adopt a policy that has some impact on IPv4 rate depletion in the NCC's service Area. How can the RIPE community "enforce" adoption of any new technology? I really don't know. I would certainly prioritize that policy proposal if i had an answer to that question :-) If someone has an answer, i will contribute for such a proposal. Unfortunately, adoption is entirely different from depletion. Depletion is caused by high usage. The need to encourage the adoption of a technology results from low usage. > Rest is personal opinion and from my point of view any conservative > policy will only last the pain longer. Markets are already in place. The "pain" will survive the total exhaustion point in this region, unfortunately. And this is obviously a personal opinion, but you will also see an increased usage of CGN -- which 2017-03 also is NOT addressing. Thanks, Carlos > thank you > regards > Riccardo > > > > Il 24/09/2017 15:09, Carlos Friaças ha scritto: > > Hi Riccardo, All, > > Thanks for your input. > > Please see inline. > > > On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Riccardo Gori wrote: > > Dear all, > > I started as an ISP early 2015 and I still consider myself a new entrant. > > > That's not my definition for "new entrant". Strictly i consider a new entrant as an organization which doesn't own any IPv4 or IPv6 address space. > Loosely, it can be a new LIR (before getting its /22 and an IPv6 block under current policy)... > > But, luckly the community approved a policy for the last /8 long before 2015. If that didn't happen, your only solution would have been to rely on the > market. > > > In the last 2 years I heard about a couple of time "no more IPv4 policies let's go over and think how to fix/help IPv6 rate adoption" but > today we are still here complaining what's the best way to last longer with the agony. > > > Is "no more IPv4 policies" written in stone somewhere? :-) > > Fix IPv6 rate adoption by policy? > Let's call our countries' telecom regulators, and ask for a policy that prohibits IPv4 usage from day X onwards? -- i don't think so........... > > > For Ipv6 RIPE NCC is doing its best with training and is really appreciated > > > +1 on that! > > > and I learned here that we tend to not mix IPv4/6 policies but I really expected incentives from the cummunity not obstacles. The "IPv6 > Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8" was abandoned 23/10/2014 by the adoption of 2014-04 proposal > > > Looking back now, was that a good decision...? > > > while this 2017-03 proposal aims to last as longer as possible with IPv4. > > > Should we tweak it, and make it more "stricter", in a way the address space is (automatically?) returned if it's not being used in v4/v6 translation > mechanisms...? (and do we have means to check that?) > > > > Looks to me that we are trying to save future generation from ice melting saving oil tanks instead of working on research and incentives to > clean energies. > > > Incentives cost money -- taxpayers' or consumers' money (or both!) > > > I don't see even any reason to save more address space than the current policies does 'casue we have "trasfert policies" > > > Transfers of last /8 slices are still allowed after 24 months -- should that possibility end...? (2017-03 v1.0 doesn't address transfers) > > > for almost any kind of IP resource and if there are some restrictions on new allocation there are more flexible for legacy space. > > > The RIPE community (through the NCC) only provides services to legacy space holders (and there was a proprosal for that... 2012-07). > The RIPE community is not able to design policies regarding address space which was distributed before the NCC's creation. > > > > Today you can simply choose to go RIPE or market as your feeling to get IPv4/6 if needed. > > > If the choice is going to the "market" (and if you are in strict sense a new entrant), the "market" will not advocate you should use/deploy IPv6. > On the other hand, if the choice is becoming a LIR, you will get that... :-) > > > > My small router deals today with more than 2.5 million routes (2 full routing tables and some IX) and it really takes time to backup and > even routing performance are affected by volume of routes. I think we should propote IPv6 for route aggregation ability. > > > There is also de-aggregation in IPv6-land. :-( > (http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/) > People will mess up routing as the rest of the world lets them... > > > I see this policy as: > - an obstacle to IPv6 > > > That was not the goal. The goal was to extend v4 availability for some more time, thus making life easier for IPv6 deployments that will still need to > talk with the v4 world. > > > - a clear side effect of market price rise on IPv4 > > > This proposal is not about the "market". a /24 can cost X, Y or Z over time. The only way we can keep "affordability" for new entrants is by defining > what they get from the NCC, not from any 3rd party. > > > > - a disincentive to route aggregation > > > I don't agree. /22s (and bigger chunks) are already being announced as /24s. What we consider is that keeping the "affordability" for new entrants is a > bigger priority than keeping the DFZ on 683k (today) instead of 725k, 750k or even 800k routes. I know 800k routes looks insane, but two years ago 683k > would have been equally insane :-)) > > ps: On 24-09-2015 (two years ago), 572876 routes > https://web.archive.org/web/20150924225101/https://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ > > > Thanks! > > > Best Regards, > Carlos Friaças > > > That's why I oppose this policy > kind regards > Riccardo > > -- > Riccardo Gori > > > -- > > Ing. Riccardo Gori > e-mail: rgori at wirem.net > Italia: +39 339 89 25 947 > España: +34 660 11 59 89 > Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 > [logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg] > > WIREM Fiber Revolution > Net-IT s.r.l. > Via Cesare Montanari, 2 > 47521 Cesena (FC) > Tel +39 0547 1955485 > Fax +39 0547 1950285 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons > above and may contain confidential information. If you have received > the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof > is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete > the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- > plying to info at wirem.net > Thank you > WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Confusion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]