Hi Peter, > My main objection to this proposal is simple: It depletes the available > pool for _new_ participants faster. I strongly believe any new actor > should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available > from RIPE. For an actor with non-zero addresses to get more addresses, > there is a secondary market.
Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22". > Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a > middle ground can be met. Based on my understanding of the other > objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the > objection side. Well, to make a useful discussion possible I think it's important to look at the timescales. A policy that changes expected depletion from e.g. 100 years to 90 years might not be a problem, but other timescales will definitely be a problem. I think the timescale I have heard that people would find acceptable is *at least* 5 to 10 years. If you look at the minutes of RIPE 70 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-70) you'll see a statement from RIPE NCC when discussing this policy proposal that "the RIPE NCC’s IPv4 pool was expected to last for around five years.". > I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any > solution can be proposed. The stated expected timescale already seems to be around the bare minimum lifetime that is accepted, and much less than what many people would like. I therefore have to agree that any proposal that shortens that lifetime even further will very probably not get consensus. Someone would need to come up with a radical new idea to get out of the current deadlock. Which is why I urge all new participants in this discussion to read the mailing list archives so they can get the full current picture before they propose a solution. Cheers, Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
