Hi,
Il 17/06/2016 19:32, Stefan Prager ha scritto:
Dear colleagues,
I suggest to just look at the facts here.
Local Internet Registries(LIRs) before the 15th September 2012 have received
Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations from the RIPE NCC. Local Internet
Registries after the 14th September 2012 have also received Provider
Aggregatable(PA) allocations from the RIPE NCC.
There is no mention in the Service Agreement that allocations provided after
14th September 2012 are to be treated differently than those handed out before
the 15th September 2012. There is also no mention in the respective policies,
as was mentioned during one of the talks at RIPE-72 in Denmark, that
allocations received after the 14th September 2012 are to be used for the sole
purpose of providing legacy connections to IPv4 networks.
Therefore it seems inconceivable that this proposal is allowed to go forward
any longer than it already has as it would seek to single out already heavily
disadvantaged members even more for the sole reason that they happen to be
holding an allocation received after the 14th September 2012.
Fellow policy shaping participants, I believe we have several options here:
a) Modify this proposal to forbid all types of transfers including mergers and
acquisitions. This will provide a level playing field for all RIPE NCC members
and not single out members solely on the fact that they have received an
allocation after the 14th September 2012.
b) Modify this proposal to change the allocation status only for new
allocations allocated after this proposal has been accepted and implemented.
c) Declare that no consensus has been reached.
I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to
already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)
Additionally I would like to mention that some people seem to think that this
proposal will stifle the Local Internet Registry application rate. Let me
assure you, it will not. Those of you that believe that this would be the
result of the acceptance of this proposal don't fully grasp the reality of the
situation we are in.
People currently need IPv4 resources to run a business. They don't need IPv6
resources yet and won't be requiring IPv6 resources for the foreseeable future
either. A business is required to take the necessary steps to secure their
survival and let me assure you they will do just that, just as any business
should.
Now where do we go from here? I am in favour of making sensible policies that
will provide IPv4 address space for the foreseeable future for new members
however this proposal is certainly not a way to achieve that as it does not
solve the problem at hand.
I have been giving this quite some thought which is the reason why I will be
putting forward the following proposal within the next week:
=> Lower the initial allocation a new RIPE NCC member receives down to a /24.
=> A new member may request an additional /24 every twelve months until he has
reached a /22.
For aggregation purposes the RIPE NCC will reserve a consecutive /22 for as
long as it is possible so new members may reach a consecutive /22 after they
have requested four /24 subnets over a time span of four years.
I think this could not be easy standing on current allocation rate but
we should ask registration services if techincally possible.
Additionally, as I understand it this is something that needs to be voted on, I
would like to lower the initial signup fee of currently 2000,00 Euros down to
just 500,00 Euros. In case they request an additional /24 after twelve months
they will need to pay an additional instalment of 500,00 Euros which will bring
the total amount still to 2000,00 Euros if they requested 4x /24 allocations
over a period of 4 years. After each allocation the RIPE NCC will aggregate the
allocation whenever possible. Subsequently if a new member requests a second
/24 the allocation will be enlarged to a /23. In the end he will be left with
one /22 if there is sufficient consecutive address space left to do so.
In cases where the Local Internet Registry does not require any IPv4 address
space it should also not be required to pay any fees apart from the membership
fees.
This proposal is interesting and fair.
You have to consider RIPE NCC techincally does not sell space. Your
proposal pratically is to change the allocation model in a pay per use
and this to me looks really interesting.
I would apply this model to the whole IPv4 space. All the already
allocated and future allocations.
In Remcko view (as in 2016-03 for ALLOCATED-FINAL) starting tomorrow in
a pay per use model for everyone is not retroactive 'cause is just a
policy change for future year fee memberships.
Stockpiles ip will vanish, so much returned space voluntary!!!!
IPv4 will last very longer and Remcko will be appy and I'll be happy too.
I'll pay every year my membership exacly for what I am assigning to my
customers and using
Kind Regards,
Stefan Prager
--
Prager-IT e.U.
VAT Number: ATU69773505
Austrian Company Register: 438885w
Skype: Prager-IT
[email protected]
+43 680 300 99 80
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
regards
Riccardo
--
Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: [email protected]
Mobile: +39 339 8925947
Mobile: +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943
WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to [email protected]
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
