Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi Arash - On 13.05.2016 03:01, Arash Naderpour wrote: > That's not true, I know some LIRs qualified for /22 not requesting it > and they are not running on auto-pilot (there are fully aware of the > market situation) OK, even then: your point is? Do you empty your bank account the second your employer has transfered your salary? At least I let it sit there until I need it, knowing, assuming or at least hoping it sits there safe and sound. So why would an LIR that has not yet requested its last /22 because it simply doesn't need it at the moment still request it right now when it is ensured that it can also request its last chunk from the cake at any given time in the future? Provided that the underlying conditions do not change, of course. Best, -C. > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM, David Monosov >> wrote: > > It would be completely irrational for any LIR that qualifies for > additional IPv4 > space not to request it. > > Any LIRs not having done so yet despite qualifying are likely running on > auto-pilot in the enterprise world or are prevented from doing so by > organizational red tape of some sort. > > [...]
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi everyone, I agree with Wilhelms arguments and I want to add my personal thoughts about 2015-05. I dont think that it is a good thing, if depletation of the RIPE NCCs IPv4 address pool will speed up and in my opinion it is the wrong signal to support the NCCs members with the historical internet addressing standard. There is a new successor standard, that will bring complete new possibilities for an internet infrastructure with an open standard for equal footing chances to step into the business. There is no need for more IPv4 addresses unless for migration use. In addition I think, that the comparision with the runout policies from other RIRs is not a valid argument. RIPEs current last /8 policy runs great and gives equal chances for new members in a mid term run. Therefore, I oppose the policy proposal 2015-05. Regards, Carsten > Am 12.05.2016 um 18:46 schrieb 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 > 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, > Op 12 mei 2016, om 15:48 heeft Randy Bushhet 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)
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)
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)
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
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Goodmoring Remco, I read that you don't want to comment more about 2015-05. I'll respect you and I won't wait for an answer and we can leave everything for a quick chat in Copenhagen but I have to leave my comment on your analisys. In your example you suppose that every LIR under a /20 will request an additional /22 (every 18 months after a /22 allocation has been reiceved) and standing on you will litterally "burn" out the space in 3 years. Let's see what has been done in the past: In september 2012 there were about 9000 LIRs members and at the end of 2013 the number grows up to 1 LIRs. So in your view "last /8" would have distributed about 1 /22 on 15130 availables from 185/8 at the end of 2013, leaving about 5000 /22 in the pool. In this vision you couldn't expect to leave to new entrants no more than 5 - 6 thousand /22. Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time? 2015-05 requires to act for IPv6 Current policy required in the past to obtain an IPv6 allocation and do exacly nothing more Nowadays the allocation policy requires just pay the fee and do nothing. regards Riccardo Il 11/05/2016 21:53, Remco van Mook ha scritto: On 11 May 2016, at 14:52 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEANwrote: On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote: Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more than half, no? No, because: - it will not be dedicated to "further allocations" - there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to qualify - with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last /8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further allocations". OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers: Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1) Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1) New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3) Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2) Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy to get another allocation. Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year. Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool should last until early 2019. At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now empty as well. So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere in early 2019. The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185 pool' was gone by the time it was needed. Now let's look at the current policy. As of today, a total of about 15,130 /22s are available. Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the available pool should last until 2025 (although the uncertainties are quite high if you extrapolate that far out) So on one hand, we have a proposal that will be game over for all in about 3 years, or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for existing and future LIRs well into the next decade. At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so they tell me. The proposed policy has an impact (even the policy proposal itself says so (4)), and one that I strongly object to. (if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so) Sources: 1) https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph 2) https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016/supporting-documents/ripe-ncc-annual-report-2015 3) https://labs.ripe.net/statistics 4) https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 Remco (no hats) -- 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)
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 21:53, Remco van Mook wrote: > OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers: > > Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1) > Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1) I'm OK with that. > New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3) > Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2) > > Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under > the proposed policy to get another allocation. > Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year. At the same time, 4472 LIRs do not have any IPv4 space. Is it possible to know how many of them never requested it, 3.5 years after (or more likely 2 years after all the restrictions have been lifted) ? Do you really think all eligible LIRs will make the request within 6 months ? > Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool > should last until early 2019. I see an average 12 months allocation rate of over 270 allocations/month (and rising). That leaves us (185/8 and recovered) 4 years 8 months (if allocation rate remains steady - but it is increasing). For 185/8 only, that is (less than) 25.75 months, which is more like mid-2018. Continuing outside of 185/8, at the same rate, we get around dec-2020/maybe jan-2021. But that's missing the following: - allocations/month are on the rise, new members are on the rise - not much effect from 2015-01 - no visible effect from suspending "multiple LIRs per member" (lower maximum, but steady high level). - things can change either way, rendering any estimation . very estimative > At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the > proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now > empty as well. Not over-night. > So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere > in early 2019. > The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185 > pool' was gone by the time it was needed. It will not be completely depleted, just reduced (and I can accept "reduced by 50%"). > or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for > existing and future LIRs well into the next decade. This is the problem that is supposed to be fixed : the pain. And if at the same time we can also do something effective for boosting IPv6 deployment, the pain level may be even less when the v4 pool will be really empty. > At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so > they tell me. So they told me too, I discovered that it's much more complicated. > (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.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote: > Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to > 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than > half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - > effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in > the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their > last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more > than half, no? No, because: - it will not be dedicated to "further allocations" - there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to qualify - with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last /8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further allocations". -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Arash, > On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash Naderpourwrote: > > Remco, <> > > Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the > discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using > that. > you can't have it both ways - entitle me to my opinion and at the same time saying I'm not allowed to voice it if you don't like it. I stand by what I said, and I can't help being a bit surprised that it took you almost a month to respond to this part of my statement. > > >>. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game > >>recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. > > We have the same situation with the “new-entrants” joined 2012 (before we > reached to last /8) and the ones joined 2 years after that. > > >>The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a > >>remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle > >>about. > > This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in > the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched. > Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more than half, no? Remco 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)
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Riccardo Goriwrote: > > Il 11/05/2016 09:02, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: > > > > minor correction, it is a state that was reached once IANA allocated the > last /8 to all the RIR's, and it affect _all_ address space after that point. > > > > > If I am not wrong standing on the information collected on this list the > new allocation criteria was triggered when first allocation from 185/8 has > been made. > > Please see Ingrid Wijte email 20/04/2016 to the list > [...] > The RIPE NCC started to allocate from 185/8 on 14 September 2012, when we > could no longer satisfy a request for address space without touching 185/8. > That moment triggered section 5.1 that states that RIPE NCC members can > request a one time /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses). > [...] > > ... too early in the morning, you're right. My point was that it affect all IPv4 addresses after that point in time, not just 185. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Il 11/05/2016 09:02, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Randy Bushwrote: you may find reading the actual last /8 policy informative. Last /8 is not really get affected by this policy. - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 this is misleading or just sadly misinformed last /8 is not an address range, it is a state reached once the ncc had only that address range and continues on irrespective of additions or subtractions of space to the ncc's pool. minor correction, it is a state that was reached once IANA allocated the last /8 to all the RIR's, and it affect _all_ address space after that point. If I am not wrong standing on the information collected on this list the new allocation criteria was triggered when first allocation from 185/8 has been made. Please see Ingrid Wijte email 20/04/2016 to the list [...] The RIPE NCC started to allocate from 185/8 on 14 September 2012, when we could no longer satisfy a request for address space without touching 185/8. That moment triggered section 5.1 that states that RIPE NCC members can request a one time /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses). [...] My understanding is that the policy was already there but the community (we) at that date considered fair end up the good part of cake before triggering the new rule Rumors says that there are a lot of suspicius allocation done just one or two weeks before triggering the "last /8" 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)
> P.S my understanding from 2015-05 is that it divides the current pool > into 2 separate parts, last allocation of /8 and additional free IP > pool received from IANA. that's nice. as i said a bit ago, you may want to read the last /8 policy and not start trying to redifine terms.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Thanks Randy, below is what you wrote on Apri 15: >i do not support pigs at the last /8 trough >the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY. >pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything. >randy can you please tell me what you meant from "last /8 allocation" there? Cheers, Arash Naderpour P.S my understanding from 2015-05 is that it divides the current pool into 2 separate parts, last allocation of /8 and additional free IP pool received from IANA. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:44 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_...@parsun.com> Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) you may find reading the actual last /8 policy informative. > Last /8 is not really get affected by this policy. > - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space > outside 185/8 this is misleading or just sadly misinformed last /8 is not an address range, it is a state reached once the ncc had only that address range and continues on irrespective of additions or subtractions of space to the ncc's pool. randy
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
you may find reading the actual last /8 policy informative. > Last /8 is not really get affected by this policy. > - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space > outside 185/8 this is misleading or just sadly misinformed last /8 is not an address range, it is a state reached once the ncc had only that address range and continues on irrespective of additions or subtractions of space to the ncc's pool. randy
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi Mikael, The last /8 is not really get affected by this policy, - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 Is it the only reason of your objection to this policy? Regards, Arash Naderpour -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: Friday, 15 April 2016 5:46 PM To: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Tore Anderson wrote: > * "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.orei...@ucd.ie> > >> On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote: >> >>> I strongly disagree with the proposal >> >> what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. >> Well said, Jim. > > +1 I agree with people above, I want to keep the last /8 for new future entrants with current policy, not deplete quicker. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Remco, Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using that. >>. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently >>have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. We have the same situation with the “new-entrants” joined 2012 (before we reached to last /8) and the ones joined 2 years after that. >>The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable >>success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched. Cheers, Arash Naderpour From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of remco van mook Sent: Friday, 15 April 2016 8:50 AM To: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Dear colleagues, I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal. Kind regards, Remco (no hats) On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net <mailto:mschm...@ripe.net> > wrote: Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> >. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the > solution is not working yet" situation. what solution is not working for you? randy, running v6 commercially since '97
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > You are talking about people addicted to Coca-Cola. You can't just ask > them to plain stop drinking Coca-Cola, as long as you have some (and > even if you no longer have, it's still difficult). You can just say "If > you start drinking water, there may be some small amounts until you > fully switch to water". At least that's the idea. And it's suposed to > only be applied to small guys, since the big ones still have large > stocks to support the transition. > I'm sorry, this reasoning simply doesn't make sense to me, in spite of the slightly condescending answer from Adrian, and your continued use of the analogy. There is little evidence to support that line of reasoning, and all too much against it. Additionally, little thought seems to have been spent considering how this should be implemented, I mostly see some hand-waving here. My feeling is that this policy will serve two groups in particular: - Speculants - Spammers who want "clean" IPv4 space for their ventures, because IPv6 spamming isn't useful yet While this clearly isn't the intent you have stated in your policy, I believe this is what it will be used for, regrettably. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 18:00, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > > I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, > > no matter what" approach. > > For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the > > solution is not working yet" situation. > > and your solution is that you want future market entrants to suffer more > than you're suffering now because there will be no address space > whatsoever left for them? They will eventually do it anyway. And I really don't belive that with the new proposal it will be in 18 months whereas with the current one it will be in more than 5 years. Those being said, historically, many new (small) entrants were not becoming LIRs from day 1. They were usually starting with some space from an existing LIR, some of them going multihomed with that space, and only then becoming LIR and having "their own space". The transfer market is discouraging this, and the limited space is also pushing many of them to become LIR not because they really want to, but because some upstream providers encourage them to do so in order to save their own space ("wanna /24 - become LIR"). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 17:37, Nick Hilliard wrote: > As a separate issue, the RIPE NCC is not in the business of telling its > members how to run their networks. Still a somehow separate issue, it shouldn't be in the "sell IPs" business neither, but it looks like it's exactly what it's doing with the multiple-LIR stuff. Follow-up 27/05.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi Roger, Il 21/04/2016 08:40, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEANwrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote: As Roger Jørgensen has explained, once the policy was triggered, it was to apply to all subsequent allocations. However, in the meantime some events happened: - recovered space issue - space returned to IANA 2012-05 to 2014-04 and gradually returned starting 2014-05 already known, space would be returned, and redistributed, it would still be covered by the policy since it would cover all allocation after that point in time. - 2013-03 - no need checking - 2014-04 - no ipv6 requirement adjustment, as we do with all policy. Maybe we should make it harder to get IPv4 space? ... but how would that help on the part we really need, more IPv6? Also it might over time make the RIR registry incomplete and full of error, that will hurt the Internet way more than the current gaming actual harm... as sad as that is... :-( - still keeping a high (~= /8) level of "somehow available space" as said earlier, it does not matter, the policy was there to safeguard some space for future startups. We are just lucky that the space has grown due to return and reallocation! Are you sure that we all here are saving space for new entrants? or there can be someone saving economic value of its allocations? Everyone of us should be aware that when a resource is exhausted there's no more value in it. I would know all allocations holded by pleople to figure how much everyone is philanthropic Please understand I am not referring to anyone in particoular can be all of us me included or nobody And again remeber I am not for fast depletion. - policy abuse, pushing to limits and general change in "who is a LIR" (get-to-transfer, multi-LIR/company, out-of-continent LIRs - more and more of them, corporate LIRs or simply "just want my damn ASN and /24" LIRs) ... and here we are again back at the core, the abuse/gaming the system to get more address space. The only real solution to this is to deploy IPv6. Handing out more address space than /22 is not a solution because there will always be a need for more. There is no upper limit and we just run out way faster, and as said over and over again, that will ruin the point with this policy - safeguard some space for the future startups. I am happy with giving RIPE NCC power to turn down request from obvious fake company... however that has it's own problem and not all of them are solvable by this working group, some might not be solvable at all. I hope everybody does realize how this proposal came to life. giving out more space to those that ask for it is not a good solution with the future in mind. However if everyone want to be greedy here and now and say screw the future (sorry the language)... -- 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)
Adrian Pitulac wrote: > I think this has not been expressed directly, but IPv6 implementation > obligations in this policy might be the reason why it could be MUCH > better than existing policy who offers the opportunities for future > entrants but does not have a long term solution for the real problem > (IPv4 exhaustion). If you think ipv6 implementation obligations are a good idea, then please feel free to put forward a separate policy to introduce them, but don't confuse them with changing the last /8 allocation policies because they are fundamentally different things. Incidentally, the reason Randy Bush wrote this earlier this morning: > believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet > another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give > them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert > their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that > decision is driven by very different business cases. ... was because he - and many other people - watched for several years as top-down policy obligations to implement OSI protocols as communication standards failed utterly and beyond hope. They failed because top-down decrees don't work. As a separate issue, the RIPE NCC is not in the business of telling its members how to run their networks. Nick
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 22/04/16 16:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: Regarding the current allocation policies, you still have not addressed the query that several people have raised about why it is better to shut off opportunities for future internet service market entrants than it is to make things marginally easier for a small segment of the existing market for a short period of time, other than "but it hurts". Nick I think this has not been expressed directly, but IPv6 implementation obligations in this policy might be the reason why it could be MUCH better than existing policy who offers the opportunities for future entrants but does not have a long term solution for the real problem (IPv4 exhaustion).
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi, > I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, > no matter what" approach. > For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the > solution is not working yet" situation. > Pain management. The only solution right now is pain suppressors. Some > have stocks, some just get enough to see it's possible but not enough to > get to a point where they can get on by themselves. Only a few are not > affected at all. Whilst this thread had already seen enough metaphors today, unless you know how long the pain is going to last, how do you know if we have enough painkillers? Cheers, Rob
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 15:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Regarding the current allocation policies, you still have not addressed > the query that several people have raised about why it is better to shut > off opportunities for future internet service market entrants than it is > to make things marginally easier for a small segment of the existing > market for a short period of time, other than "but it hurts". Hi, I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, no matter what" approach. For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the solution is not working yet" situation. Pain management. The only solution right now is pain suppressors. Some have stocks, some just get enough to see it's possible but not enough to get to a point where they can get on by themselves. Only a few are not affected at all.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > You are talking about people addicted to Coca-Cola. You can't just ask > them to plain stop drinking Coca-Cola, as long as you have some (and > even if you no longer have, it's still difficult). People can be as addicted to using ipv4 addresses as they want. It changes nothing: the supply of previously unused address blocks is running out, and the only issue with allocation of the remainder is how to allocate them rather than the uncomfortable reality that they will soon disappear completely and we will have no options for internet connectivity other than ipv6 and the ipv4 address market. Regarding the current allocation policies, you still have not addressed the query that several people have raised about why it is better to shut off opportunities for future internet service market entrants than it is to make things marginally easier for a small segment of the existing market for a short period of time, other than "but it hurts". Nick
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 10:46, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but > there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial > IPv4 allocation was made. But with additional allocation it IS possible > to check if they even done anything in that time. Right now, there's no string attached. As long as the issue of "new player, get IPv6 ASAP" one of the 2 ways to achieve this is to stop handing out allocations directly, but "lease" them for X months/years, and recover it if no IPv6 has been deployed in the meanwhile. The complexity of such a thing is much higher, but if anybody would find the good wording for this, I would support. The second one would be "no more IPv4 at all". We're not there yet. > 5-stars RIPEness with even higher thresholds + on main site + IPv6 > as part of usual services to customers ? It will be hard to achieve > without actual rollout, and additional allocations to LIRs will be > either small in number or useful. I agree, with the reserve of clearly defining "main site".
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but there > is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial IPv4 > allocation was made. > Can you elaborate a bit please ? Denis
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 22.04.2016 11:05, Randy Bush wrote: believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that decision is driven by very different business cases. the purpose of the last /8 policy was to let new entrants have teenie bits of ipv4 to join the internet, which will require v4 for a long while. randy Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial IPv4 allocation was made. But with additional allocation it IS possible to check if they even done anything in that time. I have no illusions, giving additional allocations is basically a small financial incentive that will only be worth it for small players. It has little value as of original proposal, which I oppose (no strings attached, just get your space and prolong your IPv4 existence). But it might be used to push some of smaller LIRs to IPv6 if we add additional requirements. 5-stars RIPEness with even higher thresholds + on main site + IPv6 as part of usual services to customers ? It will be hard to achieve without actual rollout, and additional allocations to LIRs will be either small in number or useful.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that decision is driven by very different business cases. the purpose of the last /8 policy was to let new entrants have teenie bits of ipv4 to join the internet, which will require v4 for a long while. randy
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Jan, Allow me to translate this to your way of seeing it.. :) Coca-Cola is ending soon, so no one could get any.. There are parties who never drank water, so based on the the policy, they are given a little coca-cola if they start drinking water (IPv6). This if in their help so they can get used to water and start drinking it as coca-cola will end soon. The condition for IPv6 implementation is a must and might be even tougher in this policy as discussed here. Hope I've cleared things for you.. On 22/04/16 08:24, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN> wrote: Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???) This is a part of reasoning I don't understand. "We would like for you to stop drinking Coca-Cola (IPv4) and instead drink water (IPv6). Here, have some more Coca-Cola." How is that an incentive for drinking water? It's not. It's an incentive for _continuing_ drinking Coca-Cola, because hey, maybe the nice fools will give you more Coca-Cola also the next time you run out. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You > can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???) > This is a part of reasoning I don't understand. "We would like for you to stop drinking Coca-Cola (IPv4) and instead drink water (IPv6). Here, have some more Coca-Cola." How is that an incentive for drinking water? It's not. It's an incentive for _continuing_ drinking Coca-Cola, because hey, maybe the nice fools will give you more Coca-Cola also the next time you run out. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 12:38, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > > They have to deal with that anyway sooner or later. Also it might become > an additional pressure, "our rivals have this strange thing called IPv6 > on their site, can we do it too?". At which point I prefer being in the situation of telling them "doing this for years already. next." > There is also a problem with IPv6 roll-outs that it's usually (almost > always?) bigger guys, but smaller companies will lag behind for years if > not decades. Small incentive for small companies to keep up ? Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???) Big guys are almost never the first (but can start really early) and rarely among the last (even if they can wait a really long time). > >> Although ideas of only giving /24 to those who don't need more, and > >> probably just /24 after some arbitrary depletion state (/10?) would be > >> great as well. Anyone writing a policy for that yet ? > > > > That was part of the initial idea (see > > https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf ) > > Then I think it needs to be considered again, with or without additional > allocation. At some point yes, that's something that should be done somehow.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> On 21 Apr 2016, at 11:38, Stepan Kucherenkowrote: > > There is also a problem with IPv6 roll-outs that it's usually (almost > always?) bigger guys, but smaller companies will lag behind for years if not > decades. Small incentive for small companies to keep up ? Not true in the UK at least. Residential IPv6 service has been led by a number of ‘smaller’ ISPs, for many years. It’s only in the last few months that we’ve seen one of the big ISPs starting to make IPv6 available to their customers; having started the visible roll-out last September, Sky UK are expecting to have well over 90% of their users enabled by July, and all new subscribers are already getting IPv6 by default. Tim
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEANwrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >>As Roger Jørgensen has explained, once the policy was triggered, it >> was to apply to all subsequent allocations. > > However, in the meantime some events happened: > - recovered space issue - space returned to IANA 2012-05 to 2014-04 and > gradually returned starting 2014-05 already known, space would be returned, and redistributed, it would still be covered by the policy since it would cover all allocation after that point in time. > - 2013-03 - no need checking > - 2014-04 - no ipv6 requirement adjustment, as we do with all policy. Maybe we should make it harder to get IPv4 space? ... but how would that help on the part we really need, more IPv6? Also it might over time make the RIR registry incomplete and full of error, that will hurt the Internet way more than the current gaming actual harm... as sad as that is... :-( > - still keeping a high (~= /8) level of "somehow available space" as said earlier, it does not matter, the policy was there to safeguard some space for future startups. We are just lucky that the space has grown due to return and reallocation! > - policy abuse, pushing to limits and general change in "who is a LIR" > (get-to-transfer, multi-LIR/company, out-of-continent LIRs - more and > more of them, corporate LIRs or simply "just want my damn ASN and /24" > LIRs) ... and here we are again back at the core, the abuse/gaming the system to get more address space. The only real solution to this is to deploy IPv6. Handing out more address space than /22 is not a solution because there will always be a need for more. There is no upper limit and we just run out way faster, and as said over and over again, that will ruin the point with this policy - safeguard some space for the future startups. I am happy with giving RIPE NCC power to turn down request from obvious fake company... however that has it's own problem and not all of them are solvable by this working group, some might not be solvable at all. > I hope everybody does realize how this proposal came to life. giving out more space to those that ask for it is not a good solution with the future in mind. However if everyone want to be greedy here and now and say screw the future (sorry the language)... -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi, On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 16:55, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > Why not just check for record for their main site and mention of > IPv6 somewhere, like "/X for every customer on every tariff" or > something similar depending on the market ? > > It may put enough pressure for them to actually roll it out. Let's not put our marketing departments in the loop. Some of them get scared (for nothing). > I don't support this proposal in it's current state though. It won't > help IPv6 rollout as it is, it can actually make it worse because some > LIRs will be able to postpone it even more. But if combined with > additional incentives...it might just work. Some tiny bit of (free) IPv4 is the incentive. I can't find better. Just need to make sure the condition is well-written. > Although ideas of only giving /24 to those who don't need more, and > probably just /24 after some arbitrary depletion state (/10?) would be > great as well. Anyone writing a policy for that yet ? That was part of the initial idea (see https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf )
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >IIRC, the triggering of the "last /8" policy (as it has usually been > known) >did not coincide with receipt of 185/8 from (NB: not "by") IANA by > RIPE NCC, >but rather with the first allocation by RIPE NCC from 185/8. 185/8 received from IANA on feb. 2011 185/8 went "in use" (and the policy started) on sept 2012 >As Roger Jørgensen has explained, once the policy was triggered, it > was to apply to all subsequent allocations. However, in the meantime some events happened: - recovered space issue - space returned to IANA 2012-05 to 2014-04 and gradually returned starting 2014-05 - 2013-03 - no need checking - 2014-04 - no ipv6 requirement - still keeping a high (~= /8) level of "somehow available space" - policy abuse, pushing to limits and general change in "who is a LIR" (get-to-transfer, multi-LIR/company, out-of-continent LIRs - more and more of them, corporate LIRs or simply "just want my damn ASN and /24" LIRs) I hope everybody does realize how this proposal came to life.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi Gert, Il 20/04/2016 13:22, Gert Doering ha scritto: Hi, On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 01:14:16PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: sorry but maybe this feeds the confusion about last /8 appling only to 185/8 or the whole RIPE available pool There was confusion about this in the past, so the NCC consulted the working group, we discussed it here on the list, and the conclusion was "as soon as the /8 kicks in, it will affect everything in the RIPE NCC free pool, period" - no going back to the older policy (should the pool grow over a /8), no "different policies for different /8s". I thought we even did a PDP on this, but cannot find it - so maybe someone else with better googling fu can find the discussion. Gert Doering APWG chair thank you for the explanation, as said and known I wan't here at that time 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)
Hi, On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 01:14:16PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: > sorry but maybe this feeds the confusion about last /8 appling only to > 185/8 or the whole RIPE available pool There was confusion about this in the past, so the NCC consulted the working group, we discussed it here on the list, and the conclusion was "as soon as the /8 kicks in, it will affect everything in the RIPE NCC free pool, period" - no going back to the older policy (should the pool grow over a /8), no "different policies for different /8s". I thought we even did a PDP on this, but cannot find it - so maybe someone else with better googling fu can find the discussion. Gert Doering APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
But Niall, I have to admit that these two statement at point 5.3 confuses me a bit: [...] 5.3 Address Recycling Any address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC will be covered by the same rules as the address space intended in section 5.1. 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. [...] sorry but maybe this feeds the confusion about last /8 appling only to 185/8 or the whole RIPE available pool thank you for you opinion Riccardo Il 20/04/2016 12:50, Niall O'Reilly ha scritto: On 20 Apr 2016, at 10:53, Riccardo Gori wrote: Andrea, can you help me understand what happened to available pool is any when 185/8 was reiceved by IANA? I think this may be the wrong question. IIRC, the triggering of the "last /8" policy (as it has usually been known) did not coincide with receipt of 185/8 from (NB: not "by") IANA by RIPE NCC, but rather with the first allocation by RIPE NCC from 185/8. As Roger Jørgensen has explained, once the policy was triggered, it was to apply to all subsequent allocations. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly -- 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)
Dear Ingrid, thank you for you help Il 20/04/2016 12:09, Ingrid Wijte ha scritto: Dear Riccardo, (I am responding on behalf of Andrea, who is currently traveling). We just wanted to confirm that Hans Petter and Roger are correct. The policy text you quoted was designed to allow address space to be returned to IANA. It does not refer to the way that the RIPE NCC should allocate from our available IPv4 pool. With the current policy, the RIPE NCC does not distinguish between address space in our available IPv4 pool on the basis of where it came from. We are currently allocating from 185/8 mainly for simplicity, and to allow a long quarantine period for returned address space. The RIPE NCC started to allocate from 185/8 on 14 September 2012, when we could no longer satisfy a request for address space without touching 185/8. That moment triggered section 5.1 that states that RIPE NCC members can request a one time /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses). Thank you, I'll try to understand as best as possibile how it worked/works but I am quite new so I don't know very well history things. I hope this helps. thank you for your help Riccardo Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Assistant Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC On 20/04/2016 11:53, Riccardo Gori wrote: Hi Roger, Il 20/04/2016 11:00, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Hans Petter Holenwrote: On 16.04.2016 12.29,remco.vanm...@gmail.com wrote: This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion. It was a name for the point in time when it would be activated, and it would stay there until there was no IPv4 left to hand out. I looked up the policy proposal at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02 " This proposal describes how the RIPE NCC should distribute IPv4 address space from the final /8 address block it receives from the IANA." Not the best wording back there it seems... Reading the rest of the proposal I fully understand the confusion and find it hard to read your interpretation into the proposal. The updated policy after this proposal can be found in RIPE 509 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-509#use-of-lastfor-pa-allocations * The following policies come into effect as soon as RIPE NCC is required to make allocations from the final /8 it receives from the IANA. It does not discuss the event where RIPE NCC gets more address space and could allocate from - which would strictly speaking not be allocation from the last /8 somewhere along the way, I think, but haven't found it yet, it was said that this policy would get activated when they got the last /8 from IANA, that was the intention. Whatever happend after _that_ point in time, would be covered by that policy. That part was to cover what you mention next... Are you sure? I mean, when 185/8 has been reiceved from IANA: There was some space around left on the free pool and it has been allocated under the same "last /8 policy" from that moment or followed its own old path? I am serius since I wasn't here at that time and I don't really know what happened. Andrea, can you help me understand what happened to available pool is any when 185/8 was reiceved by IANA? please understand I signed up 01/2015, when exacly took place the first allocation made under "last /8" policy? any help would be appreciated thanks Riccardo Tracing the policy text trough the versions - This text was first removed between * RIPE 599 published on 20 December 2013 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-599#Use-last-for-PA-Allocations and * RIPE 604 - published on 4 Feb 2014: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604 Where the text was changed to: The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22. The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4 addresses (a single /22 or the equivalent thereof). The side story behind this is probably related to that it was assumed that IANA would get some address space back, address space they again could redistribute to the LIR. When slized up it would at some point not be possible to hand out /22's, only smaller blocks that could add upto a /22. All that would be addresses covered by "the last /8 policy", the runout policy. and no reference to the last /8. So I can easily understand the confusion. The intention was that once the policy was activated it would be there for all future until there was no IPv4 left. It was just called "the last /8 policy" since that's how it started out, the activation point. (I can't find referenced to all of this but it is somewhere in the archives,
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Dear Riccardo, (I am responding on behalf of Andrea, who is currently traveling). We just wanted to confirm that Hans Petter and Roger are correct. The policy text you quoted was designed to allow address space to be returned to IANA. It does not refer to the way that the RIPE NCC should allocate from our available IPv4 pool. With the current policy, the RIPE NCC does not distinguish between address space in our available IPv4 pool on the basis of where it came from. We are currently allocating from 185/8 mainly for simplicity, and to allow a long quarantine period for returned address space. The RIPE NCC started to allocate from 185/8 on 14 September 2012, when we could no longer satisfy a request for address space without touching 185/8. That moment triggered section 5.1 that states that RIPE NCC members can request a one time /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses). I hope this helps. Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Assistant Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC On 20/04/2016 11:53, Riccardo Gori wrote: Hi Roger, Il 20/04/2016 11:00, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Hans Petter Holenwrote: On 16.04.2016 12.29,remco.vanm...@gmail.com wrote: This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion. It was a name for the point in time when it would be activated, and it would stay there until there was no IPv4 left to hand out. I looked up the policy proposal at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02 " This proposal describes how the RIPE NCC should distribute IPv4 address space from the final /8 address block it receives from the IANA." Not the best wording back there it seems... Reading the rest of the proposal I fully understand the confusion and find it hard to read your interpretation into the proposal. The updated policy after this proposal can be found in RIPE 509 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-509#use-of-lastfor-pa-allocations * The following policies come into effect as soon as RIPE NCC is required to make allocations from the final /8 it receives from the IANA. It does not discuss the event where RIPE NCC gets more address space and could allocate from - which would strictly speaking not be allocation from the last /8 somewhere along the way, I think, but haven't found it yet, it was said that this policy would get activated when they got the last /8 from IANA, that was the intention. Whatever happend after _that_ point in time, would be covered by that policy. That part was to cover what you mention next... Are you sure? I mean, when 185/8 has been reiceved from IANA: There was some space around left on the free pool and it has been allocated under the same "last /8 policy" from that moment or followed its own old path? I am serius since I wasn't here at that time and I don't really know what happened. Andrea, can you help me understand what happened to available pool is any when 185/8 was reiceved by IANA? please understand I signed up 01/2015, when exacly took place the first allocation made under "last /8" policy? any help would be appreciated thanks Riccardo Tracing the policy text trough the versions - This text was first removed between * RIPE 599 published on 20 December 2013 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-599#Use-last-for-PA-Allocations and * RIPE 604 - published on 4 Feb 2014: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604 Where the text was changed to: The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22. The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4 addresses (a single /22 or the equivalent thereof). The side story behind this is probably related to that it was assumed that IANA would get some address space back, address space they again could redistribute to the LIR. When slized up it would at some point not be possible to hand out /22's, only smaller blocks that could add upto a /22. All that would be addresses covered by "the last /8 policy", the runout policy. and no reference to the last /8. So I can easily understand the confusion. The intention was that once the policy was activated it would be there for all future until there was no IPv4 left. It was just called "the last /8 policy" since that's how it started out, the activation point. (I can't find referenced to all of this but it is somewhere in the archives, and guess Geert or you can find it all? Wonder if it might be somewhere in the IETF space or so this was discussed to?) -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail:rg...@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi Roger, Il 20/04/2016 11:00, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Hans Petter Holenwrote: On 16.04.2016 12.29, remco.vanm...@gmail.com wrote: This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion. It was a name for the point in time when it would be activated, and it would stay there until there was no IPv4 left to hand out. I looked up the policy proposal at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02 " This proposal describes how the RIPE NCC should distribute IPv4 address space from the final /8 address block it receives from the IANA." Not the best wording back there it seems... Reading the rest of the proposal I fully understand the confusion and find it hard to read your interpretation into the proposal. The updated policy after this proposal can be found in RIPE 509 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-509#use-of-lastfor-pa-allocations * The following policies come into effect as soon as RIPE NCC is required to make allocations from the final /8 it receives from the IANA. It does not discuss the event where RIPE NCC gets more address space and could allocate from - which would strictly speaking not be allocation from the last /8 somewhere along the way, I think, but haven't found it yet, it was said that this policy would get activated when they got the last /8 from IANA, that was the intention. Whatever happend after _that_ point in time, would be covered by that policy. That part was to cover what you mention next... Are you sure? I mean, when 185/8 has been reiceved from IANA: There was some space around left on the free pool and it has been allocated under the same "last /8 policy" from that moment or followed its own old path? I am serius since I wasn't here at that time and I don't really know what happened. Andrea, can you help me understand what happened to available pool is any when 185/8 was reiceved by IANA? please understand I signed up 01/2015, when exacly took place the first allocation made under "last /8" policy? any help would be appreciated thanks Riccardo Tracing the policy text trough the versions - This text was first removed between * RIPE 599 published on 20 December 2013 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-599#Use-last-for-PA-Allocations and * RIPE 604 - published on 4 Feb 2014: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604 Where the text was changed to: The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22. The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4 addresses (a single /22 or the equivalent thereof). The side story behind this is probably related to that it was assumed that IANA would get some address space back, address space they again could redistribute to the LIR. When slized up it would at some point not be possible to hand out /22's, only smaller blocks that could add upto a /22. All that would be addresses covered by "the last /8 policy", the runout policy. and no reference to the last /8. So I can easily understand the confusion. The intention was that once the policy was activated it would be there for all future until there was no IPv4 left. It was just called "the last /8 policy" since that's how it started out, the activation point. (I can't find referenced to all of this but it is somewhere in the archives, and guess Geert or you can find it all? Wonder if it might be somewhere in the IETF space or so this was discussed to?) -- 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)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEANwrote: > If it can get more support, why not ? > 5 stars, why not ? (actually I have some idea why, and it wouldn't > bother me) To me it seems like there are a not so minor misunderstanding right here. It is not so much about getting MORE support, since we do not vote. What we do are working toward a overall good solution. Unfortunately there are no real good solution, our only option is to change protocol, and with that change some pain will follow which it seems like you and other are experience. Embrace the future, don't run from it and avoid facing it, that is my suggestion. The current policy is there to keep some space in reserve for future startups so they can have _some_ IPv4 space for whatever reason, it is NOT there to give current startups enough IPv4 space, that is just not possible. All pools are either empty or they are running out, and due to ongoing cleanup we are so lucky that there has been IPv4 space returned so the runout will take longer, that is we have _some_ IPv4 space longer than we initial thought was possible! Let us not waste that with being greedy here and now. The only IPv4 left are what can be found from redistribution or splitting up of already allocated IPv4 space, that has it's own ballpark of trouble associated with it, an entire different discussion. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi Hans, good morning list, I think there is no confusion. section 5.3 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649 [...] 5.3 Address Recycling Any address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC will be covered by the same rules as the address space intended in section 5.1. 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. [...] What is you understanding of "not be returned to the IANA but re-issued by the RIPE NCC itself" ? In my understanding this does not talks about any space RECEIVED from IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool Recovered space reiceved from IANA comes from a global policy ratified by RIRs in September 2012 Maybe Andrea Cima can clarify RIPE NCC understanding about this, Andrea could you please give us RIPE NCC understading? On the other hand it's easy to say that all the available pool can fall under the same policy in section 5.1. but it's clear that when last /8 was thought was to allow new entrants as well as existing LIRs develop IPv6 and keep fairness on the market. Sorry for repeating myself but please note that policy 2014-04 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-04) removed IPv6 requirement to obtain last /22 IPv4 allocation. We have no IPv6 incentives but t-shirts! Gert, Sander (Chairs): may I ask you to give me/us your opinion about absence of IPv6 incetives in our policies don't you think we are missing something? regards Riccardo Il 20/04/2016 01:17, Hans Petter Holen ha scritto: On 16.04.2016 12.29, remco.vanm...@gmail.com wrote: This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion. I looked up the policy proposal at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02 " This proposal describes how the RIPE NCC should distribute IPv4 address space from the final /8 address block it receives from the IANA." Reading the rest of the proposal I fully understand the confusion and find it hard to read your interpretation into the proposal. The updated policy after this proposal can be found in RIPE 509 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-509#use-of-lastfor-pa-allocations * The following policies come into effect as soon as RIPE NCC is required to make allocations from the final /8 it receives from the IANA. It does not discuss the event where RIPE NCC gets more address space and could allocate from - which would strictly speaking not be allocation from the last /8 Tracing the policy text trough the versions - This text was first removed between * RIPE 599 published on 20 December 2013 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-599#Use-last-for-PA-Allocationsand * RIPE 604 - published on 4 Feb 2014: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604 Where the text was changed to: 1. The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22. 2. The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4 addresses (a single /22 or the equivalent thereof). and no reference to the last /8. So I can easily understand the confusion. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 |h...@oslo.net |http://hph.oslo.net -- 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)
> On 19 Apr 2016, at 23:21, Hans Petter Holenwrote: > > I also see new LIRs beeing set up to sell the space for profit. That’s regrettable and I wish it stopped. [Well it will when we run out of v4... :-)] But if we could stop this, I suppose those “bad actors” would just acquire space on the secondary market or other sources and that could harm the quality of the info in the RIPE database. Both choices are ugly.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 16.04.2016 12.29, remco.vanm...@gmail.com wrote: This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion. I looked up the policy proposal at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02 " This proposal describes how the RIPE NCC should distribute IPv4 address space from the final /8 address block it receives from the IANA." Reading the rest of the proposal I fully understand the confusion and find it hard to read your interpretation into the proposal. The updated policy after this proposal can be found in RIPE 509 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-509#use-of-lastfor-pa-allocations * The following policies come into effect as soon as RIPE NCC is required to make allocations from the final /8 it receives from the IANA. It does not discuss the event where RIPE NCC gets more address space and could allocate from - which would strictly speaking not be allocation from the last /8 Tracing the policy text trough the versions - This text was first removed between * RIPE 599 published on 20 December 2013 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-599#Use-last-for-PA-Allocations and * RIPE 604 - published on 4 Feb 2014: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604 Where the text was changed to: The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22. The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4 addresses (a single /22 or the equivalent thereof). and no reference to the last /8. So I can easily understand the confusion. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | h...@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 15.04.2016 00.50, remco van mook wrote: a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, I would be interested to see how this can be done effectively. As a matter of transparency I think it is important to understand all the aspects of this. The policy does not exist in a vacuum. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | h...@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 14.04.2016 22.07, Erik Bais wrote: but the difference is an issue of fully running out within 18 months or 5.3 years. Thanks for a very useful analysis Erik. I think this is the key point - does the community want to put priority short term or longer term? -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | h...@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi On Wednesday 20 April 2016, Hans Petter Holenwrote: > On 16.04.2016 19.00, Jim Reid wrote: > >> I actually said "This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee >> the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I >> oppose it.” >> > If I remember correctly we have spent approx half of the last /8 > but the same amount of address space has been returned - so the amount of > space available now is approximately the same as when we started the /8 > policy. > See: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph > > The complicated part for this wg - is that the charging scheme for RIPE > NCC membership is NOT a topic of the wg. > > At the same time it is very easy to obtain more address space from the > RIPE NCC: establish a new registry. This has a cost. While the possibility > to establish multiple LIRs pr members has been suspended by the Exec Board, > there is an easy workaround - just set up a new company to set up a new > registry - but this has a slightly higher cost. This cost is still lower > than buying address space on the open market. While restrictions on > transfer on address space has been put in place - there are easy > workarounds for this as well: sell the company - or make a lease with > option to buy agreement. > > As the RIPE NCC is a membership organization and not a government it will > be hard if not impossible to prohibit such workarounds. > > Can not agree more. Folks here barely thinking about the "business" side of the story, if there is an way to make profit and no risk, people would do it. With raising v4 price, I would expect much faster depletion due to the very fact that paying RIPE NCC is easier, more transparent in the process compare to the market, and even cheaper. > So the effect of the current policy is that new LIRs are established to > get address space. No matter what the policy looks like. Some of this is > used for building Internet services - some of this is sold to others to > build Internet services. > > The question for the community is what is fair distribution of address > space - now and in the short and long term future. > > Long term the only viable solution is IPv6 - but how do we share the > common good in the mean time? > > -- > Hans Petter Holen > Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | h...@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 15.04.2016 20.59, Adrian Pitulac wrote: I'm more inclining to believe that certain old LIR's made a big business from this, by creating an artificial market and then sold their free ip pools on the market for a hefty profit. I do not think this is the case. What I see is that old LIRs holding address space they no longer use, because they are not providing internet services, sell it when they realize it has a value. In many cases address space brokers make an effort tracing down unused space and puts it to use. I also see new LIRs beeing set up to sell the space for profit. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | h...@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 14.04.2016 18.13, Jim Reid wrote: I know companies who've done this. It isn't sensible. True. But the NCC has ways to deal with those sorts of bad actors. Besides, the checks on a new LIR raise a reasonably high barrier for those who try to game the system in this way. No. I work for a multi-national corporation. We have multiple datacentres in multiple countries and these are organized as separate legal entities and have separate LIRs. This has been the practice of large multi-national LIRs for the last 20 years. I do not see how that makes us a bad actor gaming the system. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | h...@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 18/04/16 18:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Adrian Pitulac wrote: Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get another IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small entities to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing investments also. They will start providing IPv6 services and this way we'll see an objective accomplishment. If you change this to: "Provides IPv6 services by default to all customers who haven't explicitly opted out", I might be tempted to support this policy proposal. However, I think that would put undue burden on RIPE to verify the IPv6 deployment of the LIR in question for them to qualify for another /22 after 18 months. So, I'm convinced that this policy will fuel IPv6 implementation at a certain level. Checkboxing 3 star IPv6 RIPEness is easy, unfortunately it has very little to do with real actual widespread IPv6 deployment. I'm for changing the policy as needed to make this sustainable and also get real benefit (in terms of IPv6 implementation) from it. This is what I proposed from the start in my interventions here.. Let's discuss and see if we can find a way to gain benefit from this policy. I'm sure that the policy proposers, will look carefully and take into consideration any viable idea.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi Carten, Il 17/04/2016 23:59, Carsten Schiefner ha scritto: Riccardo, On 15.04.2016 07:48, Riccardo Gori wrote: with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8 policy. We are dealing with the same amount of space as September 2012 so it works as designed me thinks. It depends on the point of view, we are discussing this exactly beacause everyone of us can have his point. RIR are supposed to act as a registry and distribute resources. How resources are distributed depends on community. This is exacly why RIR have to accept comments in PDP from non members and from everyone else in the world. What if just a mass of people come here and propose to adopt ARIN similar policy? Policy Development Process is: I would/think; You would/think; He would/think and finally: We do...shouldn't be like that? Resources are global you can't say ARIN was wrong because depleted faster entered and we are successfull just because we still have space. About IPv6 adoption sorry but the fact is that we are later than ARIN. Don't misunderstant please I am not in favor of depletion. that in the meanwhile has been abused in several ways Please define "abuse in several ways". You are also encouraged to suggest potential remedies per item. Several ways include repeated and reiterated procedures like these: - cases of LIRs requested and obtained (before 09/2012 and last /8 policy) resources with fake network plans (now you don't need any network plan) - in the past (I mean before 09/2012 and last /8 policy) some organizations running multiple LIR used it to obtaion space as big as /16 on the same day in two different LIRs - in Last /8 multiple LIRs used to obtain resources and sell resources to the market preocess reiterated and (stopped by 2015-01) - open and closing LIR to stockpile resources (stopped by 2015-01) Please note that new allocation rate of /22 from 185/8 reamins unchanged due to new LIR signin up at the same rate or faster. Our policy is suppose to reduce new LIR sign up rate allowing current new entrants to not incentive their customers to sign up as a new LIR and waste a /22 and offer them just the space they need. and there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption. How about: making your Internet outfit future-poof? Sounds pretty convincing to me. Carten, as proposers, we didn't pretend to have "the solution". The proposal contains something we believe in and here we tried to push some incentive to adopt IPv6 for smaller LIRs as you can understand from the text. Please read carefully the BOARD consideratios in 2014-04 that removed the only IPv6 requisite on current policy https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-04 Now you can get your IPv6 t-shirt as noticed by Radu. About future proof internet: it's easy to say that nothing is future proof but human mind is awsome and when we get in trouble in most cases we were able to find a way out. If it were up to me I would approve NAT in IPv6 and I would use those famouse unusable 16 /8 (for future use 240/8 - 255/8) but this is out of topic here, thank you for asking my point anyway. kind regards Riccardo Best, -C. -- 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)
Hello, I've read the proposal and arguments for and against and indeed all the various different opinions presented. Although I can see some merit to support the proposal from a needs based perspective and use of reclaimed addresses. Personally I cannot however ignore the fact that new LIR's into the future will need IPv4 to implement IPv6 based solutions of whatever flavour, and therefore I cannot support this policy change as I believe the current policy is fit for purpose. To confirm I do not support this policy proposal. Kind Regards, Guy On 14/04/2016 13:41, Marco Schmidt wrote: Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 15.04.2016 00:33, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote: > >> I strongly disagree with the proposal > > what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. > Well said, Jim. Ad idem. Best, -C.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 10:42, Lu Heng wrote: > As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP > refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the > very definition of LIR. > > The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that > group could be. > > What current ISP doing nowadays, instead of charging customer and apply to > RIPE for their customer's IP, they ask their customer come to RIPE to > become their own LIR and get their own IP then manage it for the customer. > In which, results what we see today, shipping companies, banks, even > airlines become LIR. Hi, This is exactly the point where the community failed. We keep saying that there is no more IPv4, and in the meanwhile more and more companies (non-ISP) discover that they can still get their needed IPv4 space, with the bonus of becoming provider independent. In the process of doing this, they "eat up" a /22 even if they only need a /23 or a /24 (or less, but that can't be routed). At the same time they still hear (for more than 10 years already) that IPv6 is coming, but still don't see it "coming close enough" (no, they don't really care about Google, FB, and Netflix - and if they do, it's more about how to block them).
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
I am in favor this policy Daniela = Daniela Catellani +39 338 8986361 dani...@viaturchetta.it
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
I think we need something comprehensive such: 1) Allocations of the last /8 reduced to /24, maybe after a trigger point, such as /10 as Tim mention. 2) We want this for only new entrants ? 3) Mandate to have a credible IPv6 deployment plan for those getting 1) simultaneous to the use of the allocated IPv4 resources, which means getting IPv6 allocation at the same time. 4) May be, no new allocations from recovered resources, which may be kept for emergency situations, experiments, or whatever. 5) No new IPv4 policies. We may debate each point as part of a single policy proposal, or split in several in case is difficult to reach consensus. Randy, I will be happy to work on that if you like a co-author. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> Responder a: <ra...@psg.com> Fecha: domingo, 17 de abril de 2016, 4:50 Para: Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com> CC: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) >>> well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, >>> policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have >>> to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which >>> seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. >> Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you >> can propose a policy regarding v4. > >not exactly. one can propose something in the opposite direction; >allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24. it may make ipv4 >last longer for the new entrants. and a /24 should be sufficient >for a large nat. > >i.e. i was serious the other day. > >randy > > ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> On 16 Apr 2016, at 12:36, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 16:09, Tim Chown wrote: > >> As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new >> venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing. > > This is a good way not to start a business, and if you still do it, not > to have many customers. > No matter how much you have IPv6 at heart, as of 16/04/2016 on most > markets "no IPv4" = "no business". For some customers, they won't use > IPv6 even if you bring it at their doorstep. Been there, done that, > still doing that. I mean design in IPv6 from the outset, not necessarily to try to run IPv6-only. But there are examples of IPv6-only deployments, and in the UK there is now at least one provider selling VPS services as IPv6 by default, charging extra for IPv4, and finding many customers just take the IPv6-only service. Rare, yes, but it’s happening. The point is, as the RIPE NCC have been saying for 5 years now, that we *are* out of IPv4, except for /22’s which are intended give a new LIR enough address space to host public facing services along with a certain level of customer-base with NAT/CGN. The existing policy gives some level of guarantee of /22’s being available for a certain period of time. As for how much time that is, Geoff Huston’s projection at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/plotend.png is quite widely cited, and indicates 6 more years at current burn rate (i.e. complete run-out around 2022). I would probably support Randy’s /24 proposal, if it were framed around a certain trigger point, i.e. the remaining pool hitting a certain level, maybe a /10’s worth left, such that /24’s were available further out. It will be interest though to see where the market rate for v4 addresses is by then, especially if IPv6 has a much more significant share of the overall traffic. Tim
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
i'll try to see in the future... Small LIR will register on different company (or daughter) LIR just to take a "only one /22" many other companies will becoma a LIR just to take v4 IPs. It's cheaper than >10 EUR/ip, right (this is already happening). Imagine after some period of time how much voting power they will have ! Well, this proposal may be accepted or may not, but in several years... think about it, will there be a v4 space for a new entrance hmmm Following is to those who will vote "against" Don't think only for the upcoming LIRs, try to understand current ones with "only one /22" ...and don't run away with "membership is for voting, not for space allocation" because with your vote you'll decide allocation p.s. why unused space can be owned by non-working companies? and this space comes on market like "never announced space" - who need of such space Cheers, Momchil On 17.4.2016 г. 11:42 ч., Lu Heng wrote: Hi I think an more interesting break down would be the companies' business(e.g the industry they are in) As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the very definition of LIR. The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that group could be. What current ISP doing nowadays, instead of charging customer and apply to RIPE for their customer's IP, they ask their customer come to RIPE to become their own LIR and get their own IP then manage it for the customer. In which, results what we see today, shipping companies, banks, even airlines become LIR. On Sunday 17 April 2016, Gert Doering> wrote: Hi, On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 09:52:15AM +0300, Adrian Pitulac wrote: > I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real > argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just > "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that? Marco has provided statistics about the IPv4 pool runout, broken down by "185" and "other addresses returned". These show that while the total number of addresses in the NCC stock is sort of "keeping up", about half of 185 is used up - so with the current trend going on, 185 will be used up in 2018-2019 or so https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-last-slash-8 Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- -- Kind regards. Lu
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi I think an more interesting break down would be the companies' business(e.g the industry they are in) As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the very definition of LIR. The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that group could be. What current ISP doing nowadays, instead of charging customer and apply to RIPE for their customer's IP, they ask their customer come to RIPE to become their own LIR and get their own IP then manage it for the customer. In which, results what we see today, shipping companies, banks, even airlines become LIR. On Sunday 17 April 2016, Gert Doeringwrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 09:52:15AM +0300, Adrian Pitulac wrote: > > I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real > > argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just > > "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that? > > Marco has provided statistics about the IPv4 pool runout, broken down by > "185" and "other addresses returned". These show that while the total > number of addresses in the NCC stock is sort of "keeping up", about half > of 185 is used up - so with the current trend going on, 185 will be > used up in 2018-2019 or so > > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-last-slash-8 > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- -- Kind regards. Lu
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi, On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 09:52:15AM +0300, Adrian Pitulac wrote: > I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real > argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just > "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that? Marco has provided statistics about the IPv4 pool runout, broken down by "185" and "other addresses returned". These show that while the total number of addresses in the NCC stock is sort of "keeping up", about half of 185 is used up - so with the current trend going on, 185 will be used up in 2018-2019 or so https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-last-slash-8 Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Adrian Pitulacwrote: > > > Jan, I think you should read my previous posts, I've come up with several > arguments, none of which have been seriously discussed and analyzed. > I have read your arguments, and they have been previously discussed and analyzed. > > Also FYI I've been reading the discussions here for a long time, and this > intervention is my first because I see the same explanation again and again > without no base. > > This should be a discussion on arguments not just a presentation of > personal "default" denial of any change to policy. This is what I saw until > now. I was under the impression that people here can start a discussion and > analyze the *for* and *against* arguments until we reach a conclusion. Am I > wrong? > > Well, insofar that you yourself have not presented any thorough arguments or analysis yourself, you are right. But others have. That you choose to disregard these arguments and analysis, is really your problem, and your problem alone. Repeating your talking point does not help, and it only makes your arguments look weaker. Frankly, your arguments have made me even more certain that this policy needs to be stopped, and the current policy has to stay in place to ensure some opportunity for future entrants. PS: My point of view directly disadvantages my employer, who could stand to gain financially from the proposal, which allows for more stockpiling of IPv4 resources for future scarcity. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 17/04/16 10:01, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Adrian Pitulac> wrote: I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that? Is this your best argument *for* the policy? That you haven't read enough posts well enough to find the arguments against, nor to find the statistics, the trends, the predictions? Seriously? -- Jan Jan, I think you should read my previous posts, I've come up with several arguments, none of which have been seriously discussed and analyzed. Also FYI I've been reading the discussions here for a long time, and this intervention is my first because I see the same explanation again and again without no base. This should be a discussion on arguments not just a presentation of personal "default" denial of any change to policy. This is what I saw until now. I was under the impression that people here can start a discussion and analyze the *for* and *against* arguments until we reach a conclusion. Am I wrong?
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 17/04/16 05:50, Randy Bush wrote: well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you can propose a policy regarding v4. not exactly. one can propose something in the opposite direction; allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24. it may make ipv4 last longer for the new entrants. and a /24 should be sufficient for a large nat. i.e. i was serious the other day. randy I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that?
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
>> well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, >> policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have >> to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which >> seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. > Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you > can propose a policy regarding v4. not exactly. one can propose something in the opposite direction; allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24. it may make ipv4 last longer for the new entrants. and a /24 should be sufficient for a large nat. i.e. i was serious the other day. randy
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bushwrote: > > I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 > > policy from today on". > > that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into > bureaucratic insanity and drowned it. Hoesntly, I think it is best companion policy goes alone with the last /8 policy, as we all know and expected people would love to come back propose to get the last piece of free pile eatted now instead of in few years. V4 are not like guns, someone holding it won't cause danger to anyone. And we don't really dealing with abuse in the policy, and we don't have any v4 left to distribute. So why we need further policy proposal regarding something that policy can not manage, control, distribute, so what for? The policy exists at start mostly for fair distribution, book keeper job so internet can function, now distribution job is done, book keep only requires transparency and easy for anyone update their record honestly without worrying anything, that's how we get best registry job done. > we could try it here. > > randy > -- -- Kind regards. Lu
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 > policy from today on". that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into bureaucratic insanity and drowned it. we could try it here. randy
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hey I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 policy from today on". All those growth thing, when was last time you saw a property developer complaint to Gov that he can not grow his business because he can not get free land? No one would be stopped doing business because of 10% more expenditure(in which at today's v4 price, not even 10%). Naming any possible business form needing IP address, I fairly confident all of them, IP won't count even 5% of their total expenditure. (You pay 1000USD to get your user connected, really 10 more USD will bankrupt you?) So the guys are doing the right business, will grow regardless. The guy aren't even survive IP price, will likely not survive many other things--so why we cares. My suggestions are get over it, leave the v4 alone. > On 17 Apr 2016, at 03:58, Aled Morriswrote: > >> On 16 April 2016 at 20:41, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >> wrote: >> Basically: there is a race. If you are an old competitor, you can >> compete as usual. If you are a new one (less that 3 years), you start >> with 10L of fuel and you get a 30 sec penalty every time you refill. > > The question is, should RIPE be trying to "level the playing field" i.e. > interfering in the market? Would it even work if they tried? > > The argument has been well made that RIPE's role in dishing out IP addresses > should be just that - making sure that there will be addresses to give when > new members need them, not playing politics, re-jigging the pool of free > addresses to "fix" a business problem that a subset of the members believe > they are suffering. > > I'm reminded of government intervention to "fix" the problems of broadband > availability where rural areas feel they are disadvantaged. The result? > hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money wasted on crap satellite > internet connections. Nobody wins. > > Aled
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> On 16 Apr 2016, at 16:35, Adrian Pitulacwrote: > > How on earth did you reach the conclusion that 185/8 will be depleted in 10 > months? I didn’t. You’re putting words in my mouth. I actually said "This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.” You’re obsessing about the absolute value of a number in an off-the-cuff rhetorical comment. Whether the free pool gets exhausted in 9 months or 11 months or 10.001 months or 10.002 months as a result of this proposal simply does not matter. It’s clearly going to get wiped out sooner than it would under the current policy. Picking nits over guesses/assumptions about when this event happens makes no difference to the outcome. We still run out of IPv4 sooner than we would with the current policy. That’s the inconvenient truth. Supporters of 2015-05 must address this, excuse the pun. 2015-05 clearly states "Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free pool.”. The object of 2015-05 is to allow further allocations. Therefore it will will speed up the depletion of the free pool. I oppose a policy proposal which has this aim and has no supporting facts to justify taking that course. I’ve listed several reasons for rejecting 2015-05 already and do not need to repeat them. Supporters of this proposal are welcome to present evidence which shows why those reasons are mistaken or wrong. Or why the proposed policy would be better for the RIPE community than the current one. For some definition of better... To date, all that’s been provided is a rag-bag of noise, non-sequiturs and vague references to unsustainable business models. If there’s a sensible or compelling justification to rapidly burn through the last dregs of IPv4, let's hear it.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016, at 13:36, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > >wrote: > > > > ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" > > equals no business. > > And these other markets are either dead or dying because there is no more > IPv4. Some might survive if they can adapt to reality in time. > > Any current business model which depends on issuing a dedicated (public?) > IPv4 addresses to new customers is doomed. That model is simply not > sustainable any more. Either change the model or go bust. Pick one. For the moment it's "change model *AND* go bust". Or "refuse and try to survive" (but ultimately fail 95% of the time, with the current rules). Customers don't care very much about IPv6, CGN doesn't always work, transfer market is at a point difficult ot reach. Or you can just let "incumbets" develop a monopoly.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 16 Apr 2016, at 13:48, Adrian Pitulacwrote: Will the 185/8 going to being depleted by new LIRs in 10 months? I'm I missing something? Yes. Allocations from 185/8 wouldn’t just go to new LIRs. And besides it’s not just allocations from that /8 that would be affected by this proposal. As Remco has already pointed out, the final /8 policy "was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion." I thought I've missed something when you wrote that and I've re-read the policy change proposal. To me it "1. The size of the allocation made from 185/8 will be exactly one /22." this sounds like allocations from 185/8 will be as till now. Then " 3.2. There is enough space in the free pool outside the 185/8 block to perform the allocation." CLEARLY STATES 185/8 won't be used for the subsequent allocations. How on earth did you reach the conclusion that 185/8 will be depleted in 10 months? Have you really read the policy change, or are you against any policy change by default? I support policy proposals which are sensible and benefit the community. (Same thing really.) 2015-05 does not do that. I have read the policy change and thought about its implications. I suggest you look at the first two bullet points listed under "Arguments opposing the proposal”. These are two of the main reasons why this proposal has to be rejected. The first one is a show-stopper. It’s more than enough reason to kill this proposal. Yes. I've read it (now twice) and it seems to me you are missing small points in it. "Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free pool. If every member holding less than a total of /20 addresses would submit a request for a new /22 allocation every 18 months, the recovered pool could be depleted in 2-3 years from now." From what I see they are talking about recovered IANA pool space. So I don't see a problem if that's going to be used in 2-3 years, considering 185/8 will remain for future new LIR's, as intended from the start.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because > the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy > was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those > deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A > really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their > government and regulators to intervene. > I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of > these unpleasantries happening. And such LIR would sue who? Himself? RIPE NCC is not a government body, nor a private company. It's an organisation of members, and such a LIR would have to be a member with set voting rights. You can't really sue for policy changes because you don't like how other, equal members voted. I'm not a lawyer but I don't see this stand in court. Missed argument. Kind Regards, Dom -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: 16 April 2016 12:22 To: Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) > On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs >> to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so >> there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? >> years from now. > > Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules > again, the free pool will not survive 10 years. Maybe, maybe not. This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it. > And if the purpose is to last as long as possible, other changes are > required (strict needs assesment, more restrictions, penalties for not > respecting the conditions) Feel free to submit policy proposals which make those chnges. :-) > Because they can't. You can deploy as much IPv6 as you want, there > still are things that require IPv4 without CGN. If you can't provide > it, you don't sell. Tough. When you’ve burnt though the free pool, you *still* won’t have the v4 space to do these things that can’t be done with NAT or whatever. What are you going to do then? And why can’t/won't you adopt these measures now? >> New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is >> and should plan accordingly. > > No, most of them don’t. Well frankly, that’s their problem. Anyone building a network or setting up a business now which is predicated on a never-ending abundance of IPv4 simply hasn’t done their homework. I wish them luck. They’re going to need it. > They barely understand what RIPE and RIPE NCC are. Then at some point > they find out (few of them know already) that years ago some people > could get more space than they ever needed, while right now you can't > get more than half of the previous minimum even if you need. So what? The rules and circumstances were different back then. Things change. Deal with it. > In certains situations (read market segements) there are no other > options. At least not today. Well frittering away the free pool is not an option. And even if it was, it could not solve the problems you appear to think this proposal would solve. We’re essentially out of IPv4. *Everyone* simply has to recognise that fact and take appropriate action. >> This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who >> *already >> have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right. > > Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only > case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing > a "large enough block" (usually more than a /22). Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene. I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
As we all know, there are lot of big LIRs with plenty of unused (or wasted) space, and now they are making serious business selling their classes. With a current price of about 10€/IP, it's easy to understand how big are interests behind this: some LIRs could make M€ just by selling something they obtained for free some years ago. It's clear that we can't "generate" more IPv4, but IMHO this is totally against a fair market. A new LIR with just a /22 shouldn't be charged like one with tons of /12: if having lot of IPv4 would be anti-economical for big LIRs, this would be a *real* incentivation for IPv6 deployment and return of IPv4. I'm not a lawyer, but probabily this problem should be reviewd by European Commission for Competition. Br -- Saverio Giuntini Servereasy di Giuntini Saverio Amministrazione e system manager
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
>On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEANwrote: > >On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote: >> >>I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to >>fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there >>will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? >>years from now. > >Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again, >the free pool will not survive 10 years. Maybe, maybe not. This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it. How is this going to happen? Will the 185/8 going to being depleted by new LIRs in 10 months? I'm I missing something? Have you really read the policy change, or are you against any policy change by default? This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already >>have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right. > >Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only >case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a >"large enough block" (usually more than a /22). Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene. I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening. I don't think this could happen, as policy's are similar to laws. If your government raises taxes next year you won't be able to sue them for that. So I think this kind of arguments have no real support.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >wrote: > > ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" > equals no business. And these other markets are either dead or dying because there is no more IPv4. Some might survive if they can adapt to reality in time. Any current business model which depends on issuing a dedicated (public?) IPv4 addresses to new customers is doomed. That model is simply not sustainable any more. Either change the model or go bust. Pick one.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi Nick, everyone is aware that fairness is a relative concept. What we mean in this proposal is that actual policy is encouraging transfer market in some way 'cause there is a transfert market to feed. Is someone asks for space because of need he won't sell outside the resource just to make quick bucks. This proposal aims to address the real need and give a little incentive (the only around are now t-shirts mentioned by Radu) to IPv6 regards Riccardo Il 16/04/2016 13:02, Nick Hilliard ha scritto: Riccardo Gori wrote: I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it to grow. It was only a matter of time before someone pulled out the word "fair". "Fair" is a hugely subjective term best left to experts in the field: namely children below the age of 16, all of whom have extraordinary skills in the art of determining what is "fair", and more importantly, what is not. In order to make things better for one section of the RIPE community, another part of the community will need to pay the price. There are several ways of doing this: we could tilt the policy in favour of larger organisations at the cost of smaller organisations, or smaller organisations at the cost of larger organisations, or existing organisations in favour of future market entrants. Currently the ipv4 allocation policy gives precedence to future market entrants and smaller players. This is an unusually altruistic position, given that future market entrants have no say in how current policy is determined. 2015-05 will change this balance further in favour of smaller players at the expense of future market entrants. At a helicopter level and speaking as a smaller LIR, I don't believe that this is a good thing to do and consequently I do not support the policy change. Nick -- 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)
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 16:09, Tim Chown wrote: > As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new > venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing. Tim, This is a good way not to start a business, and if you still do it, not to have many customers. No matter how much you have IPv6 at heart, as of 16/04/2016 on most markets "no IPv4" = "no business". For some customers, they won't use IPv6 even if you bring it at their doorstep. Been there, done that, still doing that.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to >> fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there >> will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? >> years from now. > > Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again, > the free pool will not survive 10 years. Maybe, maybe not. This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it. > And if the purpose is to last as long as possible, other changes are > required (strict needs assesment, more restrictions, penalties for not > respecting the conditions) Feel free to submit policy proposals which make those chnges. :-) > Because they can't. You can deploy as much IPv6 as you want, there still > are things that require IPv4 without CGN. If you can't provide it, you > don't sell. Tough. When you’ve burnt though the free pool, you *still* won’t have the v4 space to do these things that can’t be done with NAT or whatever. What are you going to do then? And why can’t/won't you adopt these measures now? >> New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is and >> should plan accordingly. > > No, most of them don’t. Well frankly, that’s their problem. Anyone building a network or setting up a business now which is predicated on a never-ending abundance of IPv4 simply hasn’t done their homework. I wish them luck. They’re going to need it. > They barely understand what RIPE and RIPE NCC > are. Then at some point they find out (few of them know already) that > years ago some people could get more space than they ever needed, while > right now you can't get more than half of the previous minimum even if > you need. So what? The rules and circumstances were different back then. Things change. Deal with it. > In certains situations (read market segements) there are no other > options. At least not today. Well frittering away the free pool is not an option. And even if it was, it could not solve the problems you appear to think this proposal would solve. We’re essentially out of IPv4. *Everyone* simply has to recognise that fact and take appropriate action. >> This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already >> have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right. > > Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only > case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a > "large enough block" (usually more than a /22). Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene. I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Riccardo Gori wrote: > I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier > exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing > it to grow. It was only a matter of time before someone pulled out the word "fair". "Fair" is a hugely subjective term best left to experts in the field: namely children below the age of 16, all of whom have extraordinary skills in the art of determining what is "fair", and more importantly, what is not. In order to make things better for one section of the RIPE community, another part of the community will need to pay the price. There are several ways of doing this: we could tilt the policy in favour of larger organisations at the cost of smaller organisations, or smaller organisations at the cost of larger organisations, or existing organisations in favour of future market entrants. Currently the ipv4 allocation policy gives precedence to future market entrants and smaller players. This is an unusually altruistic position, given that future market entrants have no say in how current policy is determined. 2015-05 will change this balance further in favour of smaller players at the expense of future market entrants. At a helicopter level and speaking as a smaller LIR, I don't believe that this is a good thing to do and consequently I do not support the policy change. Nick
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:41, Gert Doering wrote: > If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small Gert, ARIN didn't run out dry (contrary to the popular behaviour). They barely entered some sort of "last /10" (23.128.0.0/10) , which is very restrictive. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
I was in support of relaxing the allocation rules for existing lirs as long as the organisation that might benefit from extra IPs did transfer ( or Sell ) IP space previously allocated, to prevent further abuse. But I can see the principal of protecting Ip space for new entrants is much fairer and more sustainable than what would be a short sighted gain of 1024 addresses every 18 months..for existing Lirs, Im against this proposal ... i can see the benefit of having addresses for new entrants to the market.. No more flip flopping from me on this proposal Thanks... On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote: > > the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY. > > The *single* "last /8" (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most > people consider new entry. > Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve > "new entry". > Did you actually read the new text ? > > > pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything. > > No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs. > > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > fr.ccs > > -- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 - PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:33, Tim Chown wrote: > > there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption. > > Really? What incentive ? A black T-Shirt ? (for the record, I preferred the blue one handed out ~2010-2012).
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:16, Peter Hessler wrote: > Growth into a market that should be killed, should not be encouraged by RIPE. What you are actually saying is the "Internet Access for Small Business" market should be killed. A "softer" interpretation would be that it should be left to "big enough players". ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" equals no business.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion. Remco Sent from my HTC - Reply message - From: "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> To: "Randy Bush" <ra...@psg.com>, "Marco Schmidt" <mschm...@ripe.net> Cc: "RIPE address policy WG" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Date: Sat, Apr 16, 2016 11:53 On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote: > the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY. The *single* "last /8" (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most people consider new entry. Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve "new entry". Did you actually read the new text ? > pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything. No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi, On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 07:48, Riccardo Gori wrote: > We are dealing with the same amount of space as September 2012 that in > the meanwhile has been abused in several ways and there are really no > incentives to IPv6 adoption. > > There was only one requirement to obtain one IPv4 /22: request and > obtain at least from /32 IPv6 to a maximum of /29 IPv6. > Am I wrong or this requirement has been removed?!?! Please explain that > to a new entrant... Not only that, but since 2014 IPv4 blocks are to be handed without any justification. Basically RIPE NCC sells IPv4 adresses. I would definitely NOT call that a success. > I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier > exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing > it to grow. What we are trying to compensante is the "fair" part which is diminishing with time. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi Erik, On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 22:07, Erik Bais wrote: > If we currently have about 12.000 members .. and hand out additional > /22’s to each of them, it will cost 12 milj addresses ( more or less..) > ( as it would be more fair than discriminating on current size and age of > an LIR … ) We won't "hand them out". We live them the choice to ask. Please note that some of them didn't request their /22 as per current policy. > The pool won’t grow much more than it is currently … We are aware. > So handing out 12 milj. addresses in a single gift.. without the hard Again, we are not doing this in a "single gift". Or at least it is not what we wanted to say. > requirement to not allow final /8 policy received IP space to be > transferred, will most likely only increase the run-out of the IP space > and not fix anything.. This is something worth discussing. I think enough people were complaining about this in order to start discussing this more seriously. > If we hand out 12 milj. Addresses of the 16.4 milj. We have 4.4 milj. > addresses left.. meaning that we will have a full run-out within 18 > months. Then again, we are not talking about handing out in one shot ! Otherwise, I can understand your point of view. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote: > the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY. The *single* "last /8" (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most people consider new entry. Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve "new entry". Did you actually read the new text ? > pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything. No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi, On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:17, Dickinson, Ian wrote: > I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop. We > have a working policy, and we should stick with it. I'm not sure everyone has the same view of "working". > Anyway, I’ve registered my objection – I’m done with this unless the text > changes. Noted.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote: > > I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to > fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there > will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? > years from now. Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again, the free pool will not survive 10 years. And if the purpose is to last as long as possible, other changes are required (strict needs assesment, more restrictions, penalties for not respecting the conditions) > LIRs who take advantage of this proposal would continue to fail to deal > with the v4 run-out. Because they can't. You can deploy as much IPv6 as you want, there still are things that require IPv4 without CGN. If you can't provide it, you don't sell. > New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is and > should plan accordingly. No, most of them don't. They barely understand what RIPE and RIPE NCC are. Then at some point they find out (few of them know already) that years ago some people could get more space than they ever needed, while right now you can't get more than half of the previous minimum even if you need. I can understand that everybody should switch to transfers market at some point, but with only a /22 you will have lots of troubles reaching that point. Cases where you can go directly from a /22 to transfers are more the exception than the rule. > It's the only sane option. But there are others. Choose wisely. In certains situations (read market segements) there are no other options. At least not today. > This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already > have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right. Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a "large enough block" (usually more than a /22). > BTW what’s to stop an unscrupulous LIR from repeatedly requesting extra > /22s (or whatever) through this proposal and then selling/transferring > the space without updating the database? If they tried to do this today, Time ? On the other hand, I would say that someone accepting the purchase of a block not declared in the database has a real problem to solve. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
This is already happening, since IPv4 price on the market is too high. Il 16/04/2016 05:20, h...@anytimechinese.com ha scritto: IPv4 price will be one day high enough that make sense opening more LIR than buy in the market. -- Saverio Giuntini Servereasy di Giuntini Saverio Amministrazione e system manager
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Hi > On 16 Apr 2016, at 02:23, Gert Doeringwrote: > > Hi, > >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 08:27:00PM +0300, Momchil Petrov wrote: >> The situation seems to me big-LIR don't allow new-LIR to grow up... is >> this cartel or something > > There is no way a "new-LIR" can grow to, say, a /12 level that some of > the big and old Telcos have - which is unfortunate, but we did not make > IPv4 with these short addresses. > Let me add something, if you have a business need /12 and your business can not even raise 10m in cash, seriously, I think there is something wrong with it. So no, new people can still grow to whatever size they want, maybe 10-15% more investment than the "good old time", but anyone who have done investment would tell you in exchange for a successful business, 10-15% more is tolerateble. > To the contrary: *because* the policy is so restrictive, "new-LIR" can > have a business at all - if we had no last-/8 restrictions, RIPE NCC would > have run out of addresses over a year ago, so "nothing at all" for new-LIRs. > > Which is more fair? > > (And we have this restrictive policy because the *old* LIRs restricted > themselves(!) from eating up all the space, leaving something for the > new LIRs to come) > > Gert Doering >-- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279