Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Tore Anderson]

* Riccardo Gori

> Thank you to all old LIRs that didn't request their last /22 so I had 
> the oportunity to request for it early Jan/2015.

Marco estimated that the pool would last for around five years under
the current policy[1]. For the sake of the argument, let's assume he's
spot on, to the exact day.

[1] 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-May/011247.html

That means that on the 11th of May 2021, a new entrant will receive the
very last /22. That last entrant could then be - like you - thanking
the "old LIRs" - yours included - for showing restraint in not passing
2015-05, giving him the opportunity to request and receive his /22.

If on the other hand 2015-05 passes, that /22 would obviously no longer
be available for allocation on the 11th of May 2021. An (at that point
in time) "old LIR" - maybe yours - would instead have received it as an
additional allocation under the 2015-05 policy. The new entrant
certaintly wouldn't be thanking anyone for their selflessness.

Tore

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Wilhelm Boeddinghaus]

Am 12.05.2016 um 15:48 schrieb Randy Bush:

it's not just our grandchildren.  if the last /8 policy had not been put
in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get
IPv4 space.

randy


Well said.

Look at the other RIRs who cannot offer any IPv4 space to new members. 
The market is more or less fixed. New ISPs cannot easily develop new 
business models and innovate. But we in RIPE region can, because of the 
strict policy. Let`s keep it.


We have talked about IPv6 so many times, there is no way to speed up 
IPv6 deployment by writing a policy. IPv6 will come, see the growth 
rates in several coutries. Apple is demanding it for the software, this 
will help. There are many companies moving to IPv6. And many enterprises 
become LIR to get IPv6 space. They want to become independant from their 
providers, never want to renumber again and see, that the Internet is  
important for their business and they take back control. Getting IPv4 
space is sometimes just an addon (a very nice one, I admit).


I oppose 2015-05 and want to stick with the current policy of not 
burning down the RIPE NCC IPv4 pool for short term profit. Welcome new 
players on the market with an IPv4 address block as long as possible.


Wilhelm

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Peter,


Il 12/05/2016 18:15, Peter Hessler ha scritto:

On 2016 May 12 (Thu) at 18:00:07 +0200 (+0200), Riccardo Gori wrote:
:We are proposing to help LIRs to gain some sustainability of their new
:businesses.

First you say this.

:again many thanks to all LIRs that didn't request their last /22

And then you say this.


You seem to be contradicting yourself in the same email.

Sorry, you are right.
I am referring to LIRs born before 14/09/2012 that didn't request their /22




regards
Riccardo
--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
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 i...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Randy,

that's why we (defined somewhere pigs) are not rewriting base concept of 
"last /8"
We are proposing to help LIRs to gain some sustainability of their new 
businesses.
This is 'cause some LIRs in the past eated almost all the space and 
created stockpiles of unused space and some years later created the well 
known transfert market where to lease/buy space for money profit.
At the same time we are trying to remind to anyone there's a IPv6 to 
deploy that is supposed to be the real solution (and disappeared from 
allocation policies).


again many thanks to all LIRs that didn't request their last /22
regards
Riccardo

Il 12/05/2016 15:48, Randy Bush ha scritto:

it's not just our grandchildren.  if the last /8 policy had not been put
in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get
IPv4 space.

randy



--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
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 i...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Sander,

thank you for your answer


Il 12/05/2016 14:16, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,


Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such 
policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time?

I can answer that one.

For 2010-02 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02) the 
WG started working down from one /8. Then the proposal started RIPE NCC had 
±7540 LIRs. Using a /22 per LIR would allow for 16000 LIRs, so more than double 
the amount at the time. A /16 of address space was set aside for unforeseen 
circumstances, and the policy states that that reservation would become part of 
the main pool if not used for such unforeseen circumstances when the pool runs 
out.
My point here is that as when "last /8" was tought was to deploy IPv6 
and leave space to new entrants.
So objecting that 2015-05 will burn the free pool just because every LIR 
under /20 can request a /22 it's not point if wasn't the same in the 
past. We should attain at the historical datas to forecast or read an 
impact analisys about it.
From approval of 2010-02 and 14 September 2012, when the policy was 
triggered, the number of LIRs grew from about 7540 to about 9000-1. 
It would be able to forecast a grow of about 1500-2000 per year.
Leaving the oportunity to any old LIRs (that reiceved allocation from 18 
Jan 2011 up to 14/09/2012 under the old policy) to obtain a /22 after 14 
September 2012 would made everyone able to forecast not more 7000-9000 
/22 to new LIRs (LIRs after 09/2012)
Let me say another time there are many stranges big allocations made 
just two weeks before the new policy took place.




I think Daniel's comment at the time sums it up quite nicely:

And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space for 
them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over IPv4 for long 
period after depletion. It's about survivance of free allocatable IPv4 address 
space as long as possible.



2011-03 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-03) updated 
the policy regarding returned address space. If I remember correctly the 
arguments on the list at the time were that by putting all the returned address 
space in the same pool as 185/8 it was made sure that we wouldn't end up in a 
policy limbo where it was not clear which policy applied to which IPv4 
addresses.

Please note that the current text is:
[...]
This section only applies to address space that is returned to the RIPE 
NCC and that will not be returned to the IANA but re-issued by the RIPE 
NCC itself.

[...]

I am not able to fully understand this because I don't know what happens 
to returned address space and when not is handable by RIPE itself  and 
should be returned to IANA cleaned and issued back to RIR.




Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03:

And, frankly, we should take every opportunity remaining to expand the meagre 
pool of IPv4 addresses we leave to our children.


And that's how we arrived at today's policy.

Cheers,
Sander

Thank you to all old LIRs that didn't request their last /22 so I had 
the oportunity to request for it early Jan/2015.
Anyway I strongly think the policy should go voer IPv4 and do something 
for IPv6!


regards
Riccardo

--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
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 i...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Marco Schmidt]

Dear Remco and Radu-Adrian,

On 11/05/2016 23:21, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

(if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so)

Please !
Since it's not easy to find the following information:
  - if a LIR received or not it's "last /22" (cannot distinguish from one
  that get it and sold it)
  - if a LIR has performed an "outbound" transfer or not
Thanks.




Thank you for your questions. We have some numbers to help the discussion.

As of today, 8,831 of our 13,755 members have requested a final /22 IPv4 
allocation under the last /8 policy.


This means that there are currently 4,924 LIRs that may still request a 
/22 allocation. This figure includes LIRs that opened recently — if we 
look only at older members, there are currently 4,791 LIRs that have 
been open for more than six months and still haven’t requested their 
final IPv4 allocation.


We also note that the proposal introduces limits around transfers. 
Currently we count 723 LIRs that have transferred IPv4 resources to 
another entity and so would not qualify for future allocations under the 
proposal.


Regarding how long the available pool will last, we estimate a period of 
around five years under the current policy. In the next few days, we 
will publish a RIPE Labs article that will give more insight into what 
we’re basing this estimate on, such as membership development trends and 
returned IPv4 address space.


Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> Op 12 mei 2016, om 15:48 heeft Randy Bush  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> it's not just our grandchildren.  if the last /8 policy had not been put
> in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get
> IPv4 space.

True. Without the current policy that started with 185/8 the NCC would have run 
out somewhere between December 2012 and January 2013 (based on an allocation 
rate of ±3.5 /8s per year, which was the rate at the time). Everybody who got 
any address space from the NCC after September 2012 should be happy that their 
predecessors took their needs into account ;)

Cheers!
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Randy Bush]

it's not just our grandchildren.  if the last /8 policy had not been put
in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get
IPv4 space.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Mozafary Mohammad]

Hi

The suggested Rule is a way to support new and small LIR, There is many 
small LIR they need new IP addresses, The Rule can help them.


Thanks


On 5/12/2016 3:46 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:

Hi Riccardo,


Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such 
policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time?

I can answer that one.

For 2010-02 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02) the 
WG started working down from one /8. Then the proposal started RIPE NCC had 
±7540 LIRs. Using a /22 per LIR would allow for 16000 LIRs, so more than double 
the amount at the time. A /16 of address space was set aside for unforeseen 
circumstances, and the policy states that that reservation would become part of 
the main pool if not used for such unforeseen circumstances when the pool runs 
out.

I think Daniel's comment at the time sums it up quite nicely:

And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space for 
them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over IPv4 for long 
period after depletion. It's about survivance of free allocatable IPv4 address 
space as long as possible.


2011-03 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-03) updated 
the policy regarding returned address space. If I remember correctly the 
arguments on the list at the time were that by putting all the returned address 
space in the same pool as 185/8 it was made sure that we wouldn't end up in a 
policy limbo where it was not clear which policy applied to which IPv4 
addresses.

Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03:

And, frankly, we should take every opportunity remaining to expand the meagre 
pool of IPv4 addresses we leave to our children.


And that's how we arrived at today's policy.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Riccardo,

> Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such 
> policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time?

I can answer that one.

For 2010-02 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02) the 
WG started working down from one /8. Then the proposal started RIPE NCC had 
±7540 LIRs. Using a /22 per LIR would allow for 16000 LIRs, so more than double 
the amount at the time. A /16 of address space was set aside for unforeseen 
circumstances, and the policy states that that reservation would become part of 
the main pool if not used for such unforeseen circumstances when the pool runs 
out.

I think Daniel's comment at the time sums it up quite nicely:
> And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space for 
> them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over IPv4 for 
> long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free allocatable IPv4 
> address space as long as possible.


2011-03 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-03) updated 
the policy regarding returned address space. If I remember correctly the 
arguments on the list at the time were that by putting all the returned address 
space in the same pool as 185/8 it was made sure that we wouldn't end up in a 
policy limbo where it was not clear which policy applied to which IPv4 
addresses.

Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03:
> And, frankly, we should take every opportunity remaining to expand the meagre 
> pool of IPv4 addresses we leave to our children.


And that's how we arrived at today's policy.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail