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.
