[address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> [2020-10-28 13:06]:
> It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial
> allocation criteria, and exactly here: b) have a plan for making
> sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments
> within two years.
> 
> So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not
> "verified" and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it
> verified are too small?

The "bad guys" could just add assignments and the plan is verified.

The fundamental question is, why would "bad guys" want to stockpile
IPv6 in any way that would hurt us as a community? What would be the
ROI for them?

I see this as a non-problem.


> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?

No.

> Other ideas?

Just leave it as it is until we actually have a problem or can see a
problem arising.

> Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra
> space may be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal
> activities and we have a responsibility on that as a community.

Well as long as filtering and RPKI is not perfect this can be done
with a lot of other address space without leaving your contact data
with the RIPE NCC.


Regards

Sebastian

-- 
GPG Key: 0x58A2D94A93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
            -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20201028/88caf855/attachment.sig>