Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> Ah, that one. Thanks for the link-local I was getting confused by the mixed 
> arguments about ALLOCATED PI.

My auto-complete is getting too used to IPv6 terminology ;)
s/-local/./

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Radu,

>>> PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE
>> 
>> ???
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa
> 
> ASSIGNED PI -> ALLOCATED PA on request.

Ah, that one. Thanks for the link-local I was getting confused by the mixed 
arguments about ALLOCATED PI.

Cheers!
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Sander Steffann wrote:

We are always very careful with linking policy to charging. We tried 
that in the past and usually ran into some issues. If, however, the RIPE 
NCC would adapt the charging scheme in this way then it would probably 
make some policy proposals less relevant :)


Ok, thanks for the clarification. I think this is however something that 
makes things a lot harder. It's like trying to do sports with your hands 
tied behind your back. Yes, you can probably get things done but it's a 
lot harder and usually results in a lot more work.


Well, can't we at least take that idea to the current policy proposals, 
that we don't talk about "LIRs who have received a post-exhaustion /22" 
but instead talking about "LIRs containing..." What's happened in the past 
is less interesting than current situation?


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, at 11:06, Sander Steffann wrote:

> > PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE
> 
> ???

https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa

ASSIGNED PI -> ALLOCATED PA on request.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy

[Jim Reid]

> On 21 Jun 2016, at 10:20, Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> 
> The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR fee. 
> If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived.

It’s up to the NCC membership to make decisions about fees, not this WG.

FWIW, I think we’re doomed to debate policy proposals on IPv4, none of which 
reach consensus, until the NCC’s address pool is gone. Some of those debates 
may well continue long after that point. :-(

Re: [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Mikael,

> I just had a thought.
> 
> What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses available to 
> new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get one post-exhaustion 
> /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in trying to stop people from 
> getting many /22:s. People have been trying to game this, by getting /22 and 
> closing the LIR, thus avoiding the LIR fee. Changes in the policy has been 
> all about trying to limit transfers etc, setting policy from what should 
> happen with /22s, stopping transfers (so people still have to pay LIR fees, 
> one per /22 etc).
> 
> Since it's actually the post-exhaustion /22 we're after why not do this:
> 
> The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR fee. 
> If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived.
> 
> Doesn't this just solve the problem everybody is arguing about? Now all of a 
> sudden it's not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care any more if 
> people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same.

We are always very careful with linking policy to charging. We tried that in 
the past and usually ran into some issues. If, however, the RIPE NCC would 
adapt the charging scheme in this way then it would probably make some policy 
proposals less relevant :)

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy

[Radu Gheorghiu]

Hello,

I think this was discussed during the last RIPE meeting and it was 
rejected by Nigel due to not being "legal" to raise fees like this.


Regards,
Radu

On 06/21/2016 12:20 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:


I just had a thought.

What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses 
available to new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get 
one post-exhaustion /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in 
trying to stop people from getting many /22:s. People have been trying 
to game this, by getting /22 and closing the LIR, thus avoiding the 
LIR fee. Changes in the policy has been all about trying to limit 
transfers etc, setting policy from what should happen with /22s, 
stopping transfers (so people still have to pay LIR fees, one per /22 
etc).


Since it's actually the post-exhaustion /22 we're after why not do this:

The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR 
fee. If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived.


Doesn't this just solve the problem everybody is arguing about? Now 
all of a sudden it's not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care 
any more if people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same.

[address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

I just had a thought.

What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses available 
to new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get one 
post-exhaustion /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in trying to 
stop people from getting many /22:s. People have been trying to game this, 
by getting /22 and closing the LIR, thus avoiding the LIR fee. Changes in 
the policy has been all about trying to limit transfers etc, setting 
policy from what should happen with /22s, stopping transfers (so people 
still have to pay LIR fees, one per /22 etc).


Since it's actually the post-exhaustion /22 we're after why not do this:

The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR 
fee. If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived.


Doesn't this just solve the problem everybody is arguing about? Now all of 
a sudden it's not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care any more 
if people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Randy,

> i have had an epiphany!  RIR stands for Rinse and Infinite Repeat.  this
> expains it all.  i feel much better now.

Good one ;)
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Patrick,

> What about assignments from the ALLOCATED FINAL? Will it be "ASSIGNED FINAL"? 
> Or partitioned space "LIR-PARTITIONED FINAL"  :-)

Nope, only the allocation will get a different status. The LIR can still use it 
like before, assign from it etc.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Riccardo,

> If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new fantasy 
> example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation created before 
> 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received such kind of 
> allocation from who didn't.

Every LIR can receive that allocation.

> PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE

???

> I invite you to read these from Registration Services update about different 
> colors allocations:
> https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf
> https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf

Thank you, I know very well what happened in my own working group.

> [...]
> RIPE NCC encourages:
> - LIRs to strive to convert to ASSIGNED PA
> “Where possible, LIRs should work to make contractual arrangements to convert 
> PI addresses into PA addresses.”
> - LIRs to not create new ASSIGNED PI
> - Where possible to convert to ALLOCATED PA
> [...]

That is from a slide talking about ALLOCATED PI, you seem to be taking it out 
of context and applying it to all PI.

> I am not thinking my arguments are false.

Yeah, that bit is obvious. However, you have repeated your point over and over 
again without providing any convincing data to back it up, so we're stopping 
this argument now. Feel free to discuss other issues you see, but the "class-b 
LIRs" argument has now been discussed, considered and found incorrect.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Patrick Velder]

Hi

What about assignments from the ALLOCATED FINAL? Will it be "ASSIGNED 
FINAL"? Or partitioned space "LIR-PARTITIONED FINAL"  :-)


Regards
Patrick

On 21.06.2016 09:17, Riccardo Gori wrote:


Hi Sander,

Il 20/06/2016 23:00, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,


Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against speculators 
but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs.

There is none, please stop repeating that.

I can ask the same
If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new 
fantasy example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation 
created before 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received 
such kind of allocation from who didn't.
Positive or negative discrimination depends on how it will affect such 
allocation. In all cases would create problems. History repeating.
The current policies even in other RIR (i think it, i am not so 
informed about that and can be wrong) are trying to move over "colors" 
and not using them to discriminate between allocations.


PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE. Why shouldn't be the same 
for an newly invented "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" or an "ALLOCATED FINAL"?


At RIPE meetings Registration Services make an update about the status 
of the database and there's some slide titeled "IPv4 blocks with 
status that cause issues"
You know what? there's is mentioned ALLOCATED PI, ALLOCATED 
UNSPECIFIED. This means discrimination between allocation creates 
problem to LIRs.
I really don't see any reason to create fantasy colors when at RIPE 
meetings it has been asked publically to take an effort on moving over it.


I invite you to read these from Registration Services update about 
different colors allocations:

https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf
https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf

[...]
RIPE NCC encourages:
- LIRs to strive to convert to ASSIGNED PA
“Where possible, LIRs should work to make contractual arrangements to 
convert PI addresses into PA addresses.”

- LIRs to not create new ASSIGNED PI
- Where possible to convert to ALLOCATED PA
[...]


I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be?

This is a ridiculous statement. Enough.

read above.

Every LIR is the same with the same rights. Under the proposed policy every LIR 
gets a /22, and no LIR can sell that /22.

True but unnecessary

What you keep complaining about is that new LIRs can't get as many IPv4 
addresses for free as LIRs that started before September 2012. That is just the 
way it is. Policy changes over time, and things that were possible in the past 
are no longer possible today. Circumstances change. If we (the community) 
hadn't changed the policy like that then there would be no addresses to give 
out at all anymore.
I am not complaing about that discussing this policy I was just 
thanking again old LIRs 'cause Gert remembered me the same note here.

But all of that has nothing to do with this policy discussion. In your previous 
message you spoke about the bottom up process, that it means that everybody has 
to be listened to. That is almost correct.

What it means is that everybody is allowed to speak and have their arguments 
considered seriously. If those arguments are found to be false then they can be 
put aside, and nobody is required to keep listening to endless repeats of those 
same rejected arguments.

Cheers,
Sander


I am not thinking my arguments are false.
regards
Riccardo
--



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 toi...@wirem.net
 Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Sander,

Il 20/06/2016 23:00, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,


Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against speculators 
but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs.

There is none, please stop repeating that.

I can ask the same
If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new 
fantasy example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation 
created before 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received 
such kind of allocation from who didn't.
Positive or negative discrimination depends on how it will affect such 
allocation. In all cases would create problems. History repeating.
The current policies even in other RIR (i think it, i am not so informed 
about that and can be wrong) are trying to move over "colors" and not 
using them to discriminate between allocations.


PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE. Why shouldn't be the same for 
an newly invented "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" or an "ALLOCATED FINAL"?


At RIPE meetings Registration Services make an update about the status 
of the database and there's some slide titeled "IPv4 blocks with status 
that cause issues"
You know what? there's is mentioned ALLOCATED PI, ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED. 
This means discrimination between allocation creates problem to LIRs.
I really don't see any reason to create fantasy colors when at RIPE 
meetings it has been asked publically to take an effort on moving over it.


I invite you to read these from Registration Services update about 
different colors allocations:

https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf
https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf

[...]
RIPE NCC encourages:
- LIRs to strive to convert to ASSIGNED PA
“Where possible, LIRs should work to make contractual arrangements to 
convert PI addresses into PA addresses.”

- LIRs to not create new ASSIGNED PI
- Where possible to convert to ALLOCATED PA
[...]




I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be?

This is a ridiculous statement. Enough.

read above.


Every LIR is the same with the same rights. Under the proposed policy every LIR 
gets a /22, and no LIR can sell that /22.

True but unnecessary


What you keep complaining about is that new LIRs can't get as many IPv4 
addresses for free as LIRs that started before September 2012. That is just the 
way it is. Policy changes over time, and things that were possible in the past 
are no longer possible today. Circumstances change. If we (the community) 
hadn't changed the policy like that then there would be no addresses to give 
out at all anymore.
I am not complaing about that discussing this policy I was just thanking 
again old LIRs 'cause Gert remembered me the same note here.


But all of that has nothing to do with this policy discussion. In your previous 
message you spoke about the bottom up process, that it means that everybody has 
to be listened to. That is almost correct.

What it means is that everybody is allowed to speak and have their arguments 
considered seriously. If those arguments are found to be false then they can be 
put aside, and nobody is required to keep listening to endless repeats of those 
same rejected arguments.

Cheers,
Sander


I am not thinking my arguments are false.
regards
Riccardo
--



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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Arash Naderpour]

>
>
>
> This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the
> burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network
> with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.
>
>
When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need
to be returned to RIPE NCC.

Arash