Hi, While I will admit it's a bit odd to allocate that much v6 space to a single entity, I don't see how this is going to cause issues based on what is currently happening, like this is not happening at scale.
Sure there might be a /21 (256x /29) of IPv6 space assigned to LIRs who already had a /29. but there are many large ISPs who alone have more space than this. Telia has a /20, China Telecom has a /16. Additionally there is no real incentive to request multiple /29s other than very rare cases. unless LIRs requesting like 16x /29s are a common occurrence, this is a non issue imo. disclaimer: I do have 3x /29 for a reason that may seem like a waste to some people and my specific issue could probably be solved by RIPE allowing me to split my /29 into /32s. -Cynthia On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, < [email protected]> 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. > > > > > >
