Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hello all, I also support the proposal. Although it won't stop speculation, it will at least discourage it. I'd also support an even longer waiting period. I don't believe anyone who seriously starts a business will have a problem with such limitation. Of course we'll have to consider the issue that Elvis mentioned earlier, about MA Regards George On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Erik Bais eb...@a2b-internet.com wrote: Having read the emails in this discussion I think that we are moving away from the policy at hand ... This policy is not about reverting the final /8 policy ... The discussion is amusing to read and I like ( mind I say .. Love ? ! ) to read what the different opinions are in the community about moving faster or reverting at all.. The policy is about closing a gap in the current procedure .. which we all see is being abused against the original intent of the stated policy ... The reasoning for reservation of the /22's in the final /8 is for new LIR's and current LIR's, to be able to get into the market and do v4 to v6 CGNAT or something alike .. or at least get some kind of startup going on some IP space ... That was the original intent .. Currently what I see ( And with that, I'm sure that Elvis agrees with me.. ) as a broker you see people offering that /22 to the market in order to make a quick buck. I don't mind .. An IPv4 resource is an IPv4 resource .. a transaction is a transaction however this is against the original intent of the policy ... We have a 24 month waiting period for IPv4 space after being transferred, to avoid 'stock piling' or to speculation .. What was not foreseen at that time, is that new allocations should also fall under that same 24 month waiting period ... This policy is to close the flipping of the /22´s to the market .. Even setting up new LIR's and flipping the /22's and closing the LIR's again ... By having the /22's fall under the same 24 month waiting period, it will make it more expensive for $parties to flip those resources ... Yes you will still make money, but they have to hold the investment for 24 months at least .. The profit they can/will make is gone for 2 years .. Now that might not stop all speculation, but it will stop the majority of the people with the idea of how to get rich quick, or at least make a quick buck .. I think that we should get this policy change in place and not because it will drive more people to the actual broker market ... Because the real IP brokers with actual inventory, can really do without these small prefixes in the sales sheets for inventory .. The idea to close this, is because that flipping of the /22's of the final /8 goes against the intent of the initial policy. Having said that, it is a Support +1 from me on this. Regards, Erik Bais
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:21:12PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote: This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4 for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4 resellers who in turn can protect their prices. I can't actually see that. The proposal doesn't move the goalposts for a new LIR at all, assuming that a new business would want to hang on to their ipv4 space for at least two years. It doesn't even prevent them from creating 1 LIR if they need more than 1024 addresses - as long as each LIR hangs on to theirs for 2 years. The only difficulty is in creating multiple LIRS and then immediately merging them (and that issue has been raised) rgds, Sascha Luck
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
+1 support. I would even agree with a 5-year restriction instead of 2. Regards, Carlos On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Erik Bais wrote: Having read the emails in this discussion I think that we are moving away from the policy at hand ... This policy is not about reverting the final /8 policy ... The discussion is amusing to read and I like ( mind I say .. Love ? ! ) to read what the different opinions are in the community about moving faster or reverting at all.. The policy is about closing a gap in the current procedure .. which we all see is being abused against the original intent of the stated policy ... The reasoning for reservation of the /22's in the final /8 is for new LIR's and current LIR's, to be able to get into the market and do v4 to v6 CGNAT or something alike .. or at least get some kind of startup going on some IP space ... That was the original intent .. Currently what I see ( And with that, I'm sure that Elvis agrees with me.. ) as a broker you see people offering that /22 to the market in order to make a quick buck. I don't mind .. An IPv4 resource is an IPv4 resource .. a transaction is a transaction however this is against the original intent of the policy ... We have a 24 month waiting period for IPv4 space after being transferred, to avoid 'stock piling' or to speculation .. What was not foreseen at that time, is that new allocations should also fall under that same 24 month waiting period ... This policy is to close the flipping of the /22´s to the market .. Even setting up new LIR's and flipping the /22's and closing the LIR's again ... By having the /22's fall under the same 24 month waiting period, it will make it more expensive for $parties to flip those resources ... Yes you will still make money, but they have to hold the investment for 24 months at least .. The profit they can/will make is gone for 2 years .. Now that might not stop all speculation, but it will stop the majority of the people with the idea of how to get rich quick, or at least make a quick buck .. I think that we should get this policy change in place and not because it will drive more people to the actual broker market ... Because the real IP brokers with actual inventory, can really do without these small prefixes in the sales sheets for inventory .. The idea to close this, is because that flipping of the /22's of the final /8 goes against the intent of the initial policy. Having said that, it is a Support +1 from me on this. Regards, Erik Bais
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 11:45 +0100, Erik Bais wrote: The reasoning for reservation of the /22's in the final /8 is for new LIR's and current LIR's, to be able to get into the market and do v4 to v6 CGNAT or something alike .. or at least get some kind of startup going on some IP space ... That was the original intent .. So the RIPE community still agree to allowing these use cases? - CGNAT to v4: Limited to 335 555 customers. Math: /28 for infrastructure (good luck...), then using http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-behave-6.pdf slide 7: S * a * N f(P,S,a,N,R)::= P == (65536-R) Translated to our case: f(1008,S,25%,400,32767) = S == 335 555. So apart from only being able to compete with other ISPs on CGNAT services, they'll be strictly limited in scope to basically serve one smaller city. Thus, the current policy basically excludes new entrants on the market, employing full CGNAT, to grow to 335 555 customers. - Cloud service provider: Limited to a maximum of 1008 customers. Assuming same minimalistic infrastructure of 1x /28 for infrastructure, a CSP is limited to a maximum of 1008 customers. And that is in the best case that each customer only has one service instance, where each service instance uses 1x IPv4. Thus, the current policy basically excludes new entrants from competition with established cloud service providers. snip The idea to close this, is because that flipping of the /22's of the final /8 goes against the intent of the initial policy. Is the intent of the original policy is to exclude new entrants from competing with established service providers? Or is this exclusion from entering the market just a side-effect of making the pool last longer by rationing address space out per legal entity? /M signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 10:06 +, Jim Reid wrote: On 20 Feb 2015, at 09:45, Martin Millnert milln...@gmail.com wrote: Limiting entry to 1024 addresses is anti-competitive. Short enough for you? Evidence please. Anecdote is not evidence. Evidence? It is completely a no-brainer to reproduce: Try starting a cloud service provider. I am, so example from reality. Current policy gives you three choices: 1) Follow the intent of the current policy and don't enter the market to compete with existing providers. The reason is that funding won't happen if the ceiling of the service is ~1000 customer service instances. 2) Turn away from RIPE NCC to the reseller market to satisfy IPv4 address needs. 3) Use policy loopholes and get 'cheap' address space from the final /8 pool. See math of https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-February/009567.html if you don't think my reality is evidence enough. I'd like the community reconcile with the reality of the policies, and see that the current policy, and certainly this proposal, is anti-competitive. The only way out is option 2. This proposal increases the importance and reliance of option 2. Is this what the community really wants? /M signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:21, Martin Millnert milln...@gmail.com wrote: This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4 for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4 resellers who in turn can protect their prices. It does not. Nobody's definitely forced to do anything. A new entrant who wants lots of IPv4 is going to have problems. [Not least of which will be acquiring enough clue to understand how to design and operate a network in the 21st century or later.] Maybe they'll buy that space from a reseller. Maybe they don't. Maybe they find reseller prices or TCs to be unacceptable and walk away, maybe they won't. Maybe they adopt IPv6. Maybe they don't. Maybe they do Stupid Things (tm) with NAT or ALG. Maybe they don't. Maybe they acquire an LIR or legacy holder who has a spare /8 stuffed down the back of the sofa, maybe they don't. They'll have lots of options to choose from and they are free to pick from whatever combination of these best meets their needs or business case at that point. Prevailing RIR policy would be just one probably small aspect of those deliberations. It also obviously extends the life of the /8 for the very limited and specific Internet business use cases approved by the community. That's what consensus based bottom-up policy making is all about. Get over it. You seem to be generating a lot of unhelpful noise. Could you please try to focus on providing counterproposals which are technically sound and deal with clearly identifiable problems or gaps in the current proposal? Thanks. For all other use cases, assistance to entry by the RIPE NCC is banned. Nope. Nobody is banning anything. The NCC is implementing policies which have consensus from the community and are broadly fair and reasonable. For some definition of those terms. Anyone who does not like those policies has access to an open and transparent mechanism for changing them. If their ideas have merit or the community can be persuaded that the new proposals are better (for some definition of better), they will get support. Over to you..
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, try to minimize barrier to entry. Thanks, those were the words I was looking for. Limiting entry to 1024 addresses is anti-competitive. Short enough for you? And intentionally running out and limiting entry to 0 addresses is ... ? Cheers, Sander
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On 20.02.2015 12:49, Martin Millnert wrote: Is the intent of the original policy is to exclude new entrants from competing with established service providers? I would formulate it like it is a not so bad side-effect that the current big players don't need to fear new players ... otherwise it is not understandable, why some big players are sitting on their not (and sometimes never before) used IPv4-Space instead of returning it. As already mentioned in GM in Warsaw, a pretty easy way to relax the IPv4-Situation in RIPE-Region would be to change the charging-scheme to pay per IP ... but that's out of scope of apwg ... so let's stay with It is only an unintended side-effect. BR -- Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: j...@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Sascha, On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 11:29 +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:21:12PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote: This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4 for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4 resellers who in turn can protect their prices. I can't actually see that. The proposal doesn't move the goalposts for a new LIR at all, assuming that a new business would want to hang on to their ipv4 space for at least two years. It doesn't even prevent them from creating 1 LIR if they need more than 1024 addresses - as long as each LIR hangs on to theirs for 2 years. Right. I re-compiled the proposal text and read it in full. The only difficulty is in creating multiple LIRS and then immediately merging them (and that issue has been raised) Which sometimes would be convenient. Holding on to multiple LIRs rather than one does have an effect in higher TCO of IPv4 from RIPE NCC. But seeing as the proposal doesn't actually affect multiple-LIR solutions, my opposition is a bit decreased -- however I still believe we're all best served by just getting this s**t over with. It's akin to removing a patch from the skin, just rip it off and deal with it. /M signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hello, In my opinion - if there is such proven cases of abuse - we should do something to prevent this. At that point I vote for support/ +1 Regards, Vladislav -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:46 PM To: policy-annou...@ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2015-01 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 12 March 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Jim, On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 11:58 +, Jim Reid wrote: Could you please try to focus on providing counterproposals which are technically sound and deal with clearly identifiable problems or gaps in the current proposal? Thanks. Yes, although a counterproposal should probably go in its own thread / actual PDP submission. A new entrant who wants lots of IPv4 is going to have problems. [Not least of which will be acquiring enough clue to understand how to design and operate a network in the 21st century or later.] Maybe they'll buy that space from a reseller. Maybe they don't. Maybe they find reseller prices or TCs to be unacceptable and walk away, maybe they won't. Maybe they adopt IPv6. Maybe they don't. Maybe they do Stupid Things (tm) with NAT or ALG. Maybe they don't. Maybe they acquire an LIR or legacy holder who has a spare /8 stuffed down the back of the sofa, maybe they don't. Completely agree with this. It's messy. Messy is bad. This is a clearly identified problem. Agreed? When it comes to what to do, I believe the markets need clear and very transparent rules to reduce friction, but restrain abuse. This is the mainly important policy aspect of future IPv4 management. I'll go study the policies from this aspect - I have nothing to add currently. They'll have lots of options to choose from and they are free to pick from whatever combination of these best meets their needs or business case at that point. Prevailing RIR policy would be just one probably small aspect of those deliberations. Indeed that is the full reality today, that RIR's role as a IPv4 supplier has vastly diminished. For all other use cases, assistance to entry by the RIPE NCC is banned. Nope. Nobody is banning anything. The NCC is implementing policies which have consensus from the community and are broadly fair and reasonable. For some definition of those terms. Anyone who does not like those policies has access to an open and transparent mechanism for changing them. If their ideas have merit or the community can be persuaded that the new proposals are better (for some definition of better), they will get support. Semantics, and also not completely true. The NCC has lately increasingly been implementing policies without any deliberation at all in the community. But that's another topic. I will agree with you that it was the way things originally worked in the RIPE region, before, when there was v4 space available. :] The relevant point here is that the policies implemented have consequences, and the community is responsible for these consequences. Legally, I guess it's the NCC. /M signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi Mikael, On 19/02/15 18:57, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: I'm waiting to get the feeling of the community on this proposal before starting a discussion on the members-discuss mailing list about the MA procedure. My gut feeling is that I do not want new LIRs created to acquire a /22, immediately transfer it out, and close the LIR. Considering the market price on IPv4 addresses I have seen and the cost of creating a LIR, this would be below market price. and this is the loophole this policy proposal wants to close. I have seen at least one example where an LIR was created, received a /22 and within a week sold it (and I suppose it also got closed just after that). regards, Elvis -- http://v4escrow.net Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: el...@v4escrow.net mailto:el...@v4escrow.net US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi Sascha, On 20/02/15 11:37, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:05:53AM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: Limiting entry to 1024 addresses is anti-competitive. And intentionally running out and limiting entry to 0 addresses is ... ? Well, you can't sue a shop for having run out of milk to sell... I do see the point of running out quickly - stretching the ipv4 supply out as long as possible does damn us to this speculation nonsense for decades to come. The question is whether running out quickly will force ipv6 to happen and thus make ipv4 essentially useless as a speculation object. The way I see it, there are conflicting goals here - protect the investment of the big ipv4 players or cause enough pain to force the switch to ipv6 in my lifetime. If it should be the job of the RIRs to promote either goal (and I'm not sure it is) the latter one would be the better outcome for the Internet in the long term. The limitation to only one /22 (from the last /8) per LIR has been approved by this community years ago. Reverting this policy proposal is a discussion that I would like to see in a separate thread and not part of the discussion of this policy proposal. As for the proposal, I'm neutral tending towards opposition pending further argument. Can you explain why you tend to oppose so I could try to address your concerns? rgds, Sascha Luck thanks, elvis -- http://v4escrow.net Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: el...@v4escrow.net mailto:el...@v4escrow.net US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:19:04PM +0100, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: The limitation to only one /22 (from the last /8) per LIR has been approved by this community years ago. Reverting this policy proposal is a discussion that I would like to see in a separate thread and not part of the discussion of this policy proposal. I didn't argue for a reversal of last /8, merely against fixing every loop-hole in order to make the ipv4 misery run even longer. Although, if it is true that NCC has more free space now than it had when last /8 came in, this loop-hole seems more of an academic concern anyway. Can you explain why you tend to oppose so I could try to address your concerns? I'd like to see ipv6 deployment get some (more) traction while I'm still alive tbh. And I think that leaving the speculators to it might accelerate that a lot more than giving out golden stars for ipv6 deployment or requiring ipv6 allocations (but not their use) for last /8 ipv4 allocations. rgds, Sascha Luck
