[address-policy-wg] Preliminary policy proposal: Exceptional /20 IPv4 allocations from the last /8

Hi Janos,

I will be in favor of this policy proposal if it means that those LIRs are going to contribute to gym cost for end-users (non-LIRs). Have you thought about that?

Regards,
Jordi
 
-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Janos Zsako <zsako at iszt.hu>
Fecha: domingo, 1 de abril de 2018, 18:46
Para: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: [address-policy-wg] Preliminary policy proposal: Exceptional /20 IPv4 allocations from the last /8

    Dear all,
    
    Several existing and potential LIRs have complained about the fact that a /22 may not be
    enough for starting an Internet service. While there is a general agreement that this
    allocation size should not be changed during the last /8 policy, it may be useful to
    make some exceptions in some properly justified cases.
    
    There is also a general agreement that people should take care of their health, they
    should eat healthy food and do sufficient physical exercise, possibly by going regularly
    to the gym.
    
    I have thought of a possibility to allocate up to a /20 from the last /8 pool to the
    companies that can prove that they encourage and help their employees to take care of
    their help, and that the employees themselves do take advantage of these possibilities.
    
    I already have a couple of initial suggestions for consideration, like the average
    number of hours of workout per employee per week, the average Body Mass Index
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index) per employee, and a couple of similar
    good ways of measuring the health status at the company. I also though that computing
    a simple average may disadvantage larger companies, therefore some formula taking into
    account the size of the different departments and the values measured there could be
    worked out, similar to the HD ratio used in determining the address utilisation
    (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-699#hd_ratio). This could make the proposal
    more fair to large enterprises. There is, however, quite some work to be done to make
    these ideas properly implementable.
    
    I think we should set up a small task force to determine the criteria such LIRs should
    meet. The time is pressing, we have to act quickly in order to be able to discuss the
    proposal in Marseilles. Anyone who volunteers for the Task Force should contact me
    ASAP. We can then come up with a formal proposal and present it to the working group,
    by following the formal steps of the PDP.
    
    I am looking forward to being contacted by the volunteers.
    
    Best regards,
    Janos
    
    PS: I am sure some people, when they hear about a new policy proposal for IPv4, they
    will come up with the usual argument that this is like arranging the deck chairs again.
    I have to mention, however, that the latest scientific research proved that the sinking
    of the Titanic could have been delayed by several hours if the deck chairs were properly
    arranged in due time. Therefore, this proposal may also contribute to a better Internet
    on the long run.
    
    PS2: To those who had the patience to read this e-mail I wish a Happy 1 April!
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.