[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] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Sat Sep 30 23:35:20 CEST 2017
Hi, On Sat, 30 Sep 2017, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017, at 13:21, Carlos Friaças wrote: >>> - forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already, >>> and possibility to make things even worse (by creating new pretext for >>> "longer than /24 in GRT"). >> >> Any prefix can be split into /24s and still remain globally routable. >> >> Going beyond /24 is really not in this proposal. A new proposal would be >> needed for that... > > The issue is not with what it's in the proposal, the issue is the > consequences, direct or indirect. Do you mean people need to agree or disagree with what is _not_ in this proposal? >>> I would also add some other reasons: >>> - community's duty/responsibility for future generations : apart what >>> it has already been discussed (get v4 on the market, get it from >>> upstream, or even "really need to get v4 ?"), we are representing here >>> the RIP*E* community, with limited geographical scope. However, the >>> policy is quite lax at the moment concerning the out-of-region use of >>> resources, basically allowing an out-of-region entity to get resources >>> with a sole promise to use *some* of them in-continent. >> >> If you disagree with the current "lax" status, why not build a new >> proposal? We don't need to address everything with just one proposal... > > This a simplist (almost childish) answer to a more complex issue. No need to go into "insult-mode". I was merely suggesting new proposals are always a possibility. > Even > if we start with only the "out-of-region" issue, we will quickly get > into the needs-based check, which I have been explained several times by > several people that it can no longer work in RIPE-land. Yes, needs-based checks will not work. But i'm probably missing something: current status is everyone gets one last /22 with no questions asked; the proposal aims to change that into a /24, still with no questions asked. Unless i'm not seeing something, the proposal doesn't really try to (re-)introduce needs-base checks. > There is also the issue of what should happen with those not respecting > the policies. Address space returning to RIPE's pool...? > Right now we seem to be in a situation where we have laws > but no police. There is no procedure that allows someone to identify something strange and then report it to the NCC, so they can evaluate it? I've googled a bit, and found this... https://www.ripe.net/report-form Never used it, though :-) > Should we continue on that direction (more laws, still no > police) 2017-03, is not about a new "rule". It's about changing an existing rule. > or should we just remove the root cause for breaking the law > (removing the law may also be an option - even if not really the best) ? I don't believe in "no rules". Otherwise, i wouldn't be co-authoring a policy proposal :-) >> It's a valid viewpoint. I would also agree with "less lax", but that >> would be a different proposal. > > I would support such a proposal, but I doubt that it will have the > expected effect in the short-medium term. First step is to build it, then search for its approval. And yes, the PDP doesn't work by just snapping fingers :-) >> I can also agree with that, but it's just a matter of sizing it. If v2.0, >> v3.0, v4.0, ... is eventually approved/adopted, it may be that there >> isn't a /12 to do this anymore... >> So, we really didn't focus in the task of establishing >> barriers/boundaries. But we might consider this for v2.0, if it helps. :-) > > So I'll wait a "better" v2.0 .... or v3.0, or v4.0 ...... :) There is a lot of input already. But let's see how it goes. Cheers, Carlos > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >
- 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] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]