[address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

Hello,
some  of these "stockpilled" IPv6 blocks are just result of merges and 
acquisitions. Business structure changes are happening on regular basis.

I don't think there's real problem with LIRs holding multiple /29s. And 
I'm against any additional bureaucracy just due to hypothetical saving 
of few IPv6 blocks (it will cost too much time/money at NCC side).

In addition, we still need to *promote* IPv6 usage.  It's not a good 
idea to scare LIRS with risk of renumbering their networks due to "too 
many resources held" after the acquisition happened...

Let's keep things simple. This topic seeks for problem where no real 
problem exists.

- Daniel


On 10/28/20 1:05 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> Hi all,
>   
> After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it deserves some discussion.
> 
> The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization.
> 
> We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?
> 
> In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ... not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs.
> 
> In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not really using it.
> 
> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.
> 
> I clearly think this is not a good thing.
> 
> 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?
> 
> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?
> 
> Other ideas?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>