Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:40, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> Here's a thought experiment:
> 
> Set aside a /12 pool for this particular purpose.

I would call this an "almost good" idea. "Almost", because /12 is too
small.
I would upgrade it to a "good idea" if it were a /11 or even a /10.
Or at least "all recovered space since 2014-07-01", which is 1x /12 + 1x
/13 + 1x /14 + whatever will follow (current estimate : 1 x /15).

However, this will also de facto create an APNIC-style policy with 2
pools, which doesn't seem very popular around. But at the point where we
are 

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 14:57, Daniel Stolpe wrote:
> Yes. That was my idea as well, when we were discussing the last /8 policy: 
> that I would have liked to have a "last /8 policy" to be about the "last 
> /8", i.e. 185/8 and then the possible other free pool could have been 
> treated differently.

Not sure that separating pools would have made things easier to accept.
Some people gave me their opinions about this issue, and at that time
(~6 weeks ago) there was only 1 (one) voice in favour of having separate
pools.

But again, if this makes it easier to pass, having distinct pools
(newcomers & further allocations, 185/8 and recovered, ...) is an option
for me as a proposer. Personally, I'm even in favour.

> The major result of this proposal is likely to be an empty free pool and 
> the broker market as the only market.

We will get there anyway.
Worst things is that we (RIPE community) kickstarted this market too
early.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Nick Hilliard]

On 21/10/2015 21:57, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> Another thing, how do you define a "hidden transfer" ? Some LIRs do have
> assignments from other LIRs that they announce in the global table with
> their own AS. Those IPs still "belong" to the LIR having the superblock
> even if the superblock is not announced.

you need to address these questions to the authors of the proposal because
as it stands, it's ambiguous and open to a wide variety of interpretations.

Nick

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Daniel Stolpe]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, remco van mook wrote:


  I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those
  that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more
  space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via
  the transfer market is really high).
  - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please
  share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.


Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other 
reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional NEEDS 
BASED
allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets RETURNED to the RIPE 
NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, allocated pre-2012), that 
would
sound very reasonable, fair and good for competition.  


Yes. That was my idea as well, when we were discussing the last /8 policy: 
that I would have liked to have a "last /8 policy" to be about the "last 
/8", i.e. 185/8 and then the possible other free pool could have been 
treated differently.


But now this seems all overtaken by events and we have left what we have 
left.


The major result of this proposal is likely to be an empty free pool and 
the broker market as the only market.


I do not support this policy.

Cheers,

Daniel

_
Daniel Stolpe   Tel:  08 - 688 11 81   
sto...@resilans.se
Resilans AB Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63
http://www.resilans.se/
Box 45 094
556741-1193
104 30 Stockholm

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Sylvain Vallerot]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


Hi all,

I do not support this proposal.


On 20/10/2015 17:33, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
> And now I've had the proper time to consider this, I agree with Remco
> and object to this proposal. We should stick to the approach that
> allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in
> artificially shortening this period.

Agreed, this last being the main reason to oppose the proposal but I agree
with many other reasons exposed, and in particular

- - LIRs created after /8 policy did have the information to take decisions
 and if they did not manage to cope with this, I do not consider future LIR
 creation should be compromised to please them,

- - uniform /22 distribution would be quite unfair and result in a big waste

IMHO A much more interesting proposal to ease access of small opérators (not
to say LIRs because LIRs are just distributors in my mind) would be to have 
the Ripe to regulate the transfer market via anonymization + fixed pricing
(have it equivalent to a LIR creation cost for a /22) or IP garbage 
collection.

Best regards,
Sylvain

- -- 
http://www.opdop.fr  -  mutualiser et interconnecter en coopérative
Opdop - Société Coopérative d'Interêt Collectif sous forme de SARL
sur IRC réseau geeknode #opdop - tél: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlYnqWkACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGMnAEAjQUpMTKLmCzHLSAPSQIgFw4C
ubb4Sbgo5p3YkUhYV7gA/iLWKAHUsQrKCLWJcwDZdpsKOy3wYJTgCDfMOyQy2Xgd
=DGf8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Aleksey Bulgakov]

I really envy to all of you that you have so much free time to write
messages here during all day and increase noise.
21 окт. 2015 г. 18:48 пользователь "Sander Steffann" 
написал:

> Hi,
>
> > Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
> ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
> >> out, ...?"
> >
> > Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
> > in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
>
> The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants
> are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as
> "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out.
> What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a
> "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To
> be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a.
> delusional) viewpoint...
>
> The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this
> special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the
> results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help
> people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give
> addresses to new entrants.
>
> But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only
> discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[h . lu]

Hi

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:53 PM, Aleksey Bulgakov  wrote:
> 
> I really envy to all of you that you have so much free time to write messages 
> here during all day and increase noise.
> 

I won't call it noise, a mailing list are there for discussion things about 
certain topic, if you are not interested, you can unsubscribe. 


> 21 окт. 2015 г. 18:48 пользователь "Sander Steffann"  
> написал:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> > Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
>> >  het volgende geschreven:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
>> >> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>> >> out, ...?"
>> >
>> > Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
>> > in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
>> 
>> The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants 
>> are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as 
>> "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. 
>> What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" 
>> situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I 
>> think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) 
>> viewpoint...
>> 
>> The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this 
>> special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the 
>> results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help 
>> people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give 
>> addresses to new entrants.
>> 
>> But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only 
>> discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>> out, ...?"
> 
> Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
> in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.

The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are 
not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we 
have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we 
have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. 
Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we 
haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint...

The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this 
special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results 
of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while 
still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new 
entrants.

But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only 
discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[h . lu]

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:48 PM, Sander Steffann  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
>>  het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>>> out, ...?"
>> 
>> Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
>> in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
> 
> The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants 
> are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as 
> "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What 
> we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" 
> situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I 
> think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) 
> viewpoint...

+1
> 
> The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this 
> special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the 
> results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help 
> people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give 
> addresses to new entrants.

How much of difference it will make for new entrants with this additional /22, 
and how much of potential impact by running out faster than we currently is 
will impact even future new entrants, I guess that are questions we really need 
to think about an answer.
> 
> But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only 
> discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
> 
> Cheers,
> Sander
> 
> 

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Garry Glendown]

Hi,

considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in
the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market
- I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a
"fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would
appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations
for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we
actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if
somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go
to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the
organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier
migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup,
only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over
1000 right now is definitely a pain!)

So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than
the  /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a
certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.:

Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22
to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless
otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for
LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18
months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less
could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any
remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the
IPs most.

Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be
entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after
the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place.

I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the
duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated
guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as
people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR
instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through
their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably
increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong)
to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full
/22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's
off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall
cost or even turning a profit ...

-garry

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[LIR (BIT I 5)]

Hi,
I'm against this proposal. It seems that economic interests are the main reason 
for that. From my personal point of view: with IPv6 there is a good replacement 
solution to connect network devices. So there is no need to offer IPv4 
addresses in a larger amount from the RIR.
Best,
Carsten

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag 
von Marco Schmidt
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 14:47
An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 
Allocation Criteria)

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now 
available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.

You can find the full proposal at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to 
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.

Regards

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[George Giannousopoulos]

Hi,

Considering that many LIRs(if not all) certainly do need extra IPv4 space,
I'd assume that all of them would ask for the extra /22. This will lead to
very fast IPv4 depletion, which was exactly what the "last /8" policy tried
to avoid.

In my opinion we shouldn't care how strict or relaxed is our policy against
the other RIRs'. We just need to make sure some IPv4 space will be
available to new entrants for the next few years.

The fact that the current pool is more than 99% of the equivalent of a /8,
is an indication that the "last /8" policy works quite well and we
shouldn't relax it.

For these reasons I don't support this proposal.

--
George

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Garry Glendown  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in
> the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market
> - I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a
> "fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would
> appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations
> for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we
> actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if
> somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go
> to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the
> organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier
> migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup,
> only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over
> 1000 right now is definitely a pain!)
>
> So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than
> the  /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a
> certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.:
>
> Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22
> to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless
> otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for
> LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18
> months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less
> could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any
> remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the
> IPs most.
>
> Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be
> entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after
> the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place.
>
> I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the
> duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated
> guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as
> people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR
> instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through
> their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably
> increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong)
> to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full
> /22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's
> off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall
> cost or even turning a profit ...
>
> -garry
>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Garry,

On 10/20/15 4:12 PM, Garry Glendown wrote:

Guten Tag,

On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote:
:https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

 From the proposed text:
   5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation

Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"?  Is it a
single /22?


According to the proposal I'd say yes ... of course, that's the basic
use case of a pool - to use it.

Anyway, maybe I have overlooked it, but there doesn't seem to be a
provision as to whether an actual need is documented, e.g. less than 25%
free of currently assigned space or less than 1 /24 available, whichever
is less.
we did not intend to include need based criteria back to the IPv4 
policy. It would be very difficult.
Imagine that I am an LIR and have a /22, this policy proposal is 
approved and I am using a /24 only. As there is no requirement for needs 
based justification, I can register a /23,/24 assignment to a 
'potential' customer and delete it once I got the second /22 allocation.


We could add in the policy that a small 'audit' (ARC) should be 
performed to verify that the LIR has recorded in the RIPE Database 
assignments for all the already used space. This way, we could help the 
registration goal.

-garry


cheers,
elvis

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:16, h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
> Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on
> the other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would
> not support it.

5 years seems borderline even with existing policy.
Then, in about 3 years APNIC and LACNIC would have probbaly run out dry
(ARIN already did) and spill-over to RIPE area could be expected. Just
look at the existing us.* LIRs having only 185 v4 address-space.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote:
> I would support it but I would add some text as follows
>
> 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its 
> registry
> [...]

Hi, 

This is something that could be done provided there are enough people
"for" and not many people "against".

Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ?

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Patrick Velder]

Hi

+1 for the proposal.
To stop abuse, it should be prevented that people open 10 LIRs and merge 
them just after receiving the /22 (like at.prager-it-*).


Regards
Patrick


On 20.10.2015 14:46, Marco Schmidt wrote:

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria",
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.

You can find the full proposal at:

 https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
 before 18 November 2015.

Regards

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Marco Schmidt]

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria",
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.

You can find the full proposal at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
 before 18 November 2015.

Regards

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Dickinson, Ian]

I am not yet convinced of this proposal in its entirety, but I am definitely 
against there being limitations based on LIR size of allocations (or age for 
that matter). If we are to do this, it should be for all LIRs without such 
limitation (though I might be ok with limits if addressing has been transferred 
from an LIR recently).

An LIR with a /19 can have need.
An LIR with a /10 equivalent can still have need.

Ian

-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf 
Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Sent: 20 October 2015 15:00
To: Riccardo Gori; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last 
/8 Allocation Criteria)

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote:
> I would support it but I would add some text as follows
>
> 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its
> registry
> [...]

Hi,

This is something that could be done provided there are enough people
"for" and not many people "against".

Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ?

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, 
confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed 
may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you 
have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete 
it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, 
use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to 
monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. 
SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and 
are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home 
Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited 
(Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc 
(Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph 
are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at 
Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Randy Bush]

>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing
> the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?

first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should
get a /16

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Sakun Alexey]

Hi!

I also support removing such limitation based on the reached size. I 
think its not fair.

If LIR has /19 - does this mean he dont need more ip addresses? I think no.

20.10.2015 17:07, Dickinson, Ian пишет:

I am not yet convinced of this proposal in its entirety, but I am definitely 
against there being limitations based on LIR size of allocations (or age for 
that matter). If we are to do this, it should be for all LIRs without such 
limitation (though I might be ok with limits if addressing has been transferred 
from an LIR recently).

An LIR with a /19 can have need.
An LIR with a /10 equivalent can still have need.

Ian

-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf 
Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Sent: 20 October 2015 15:00
To: Riccardo Gori; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last 
/8 Allocation Criteria)

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote:

I would support it but I would add some text as follows

3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its
registry
[...]

Hi,

This is something that could be done provided there are enough people
"for" and not many people "against".

Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ?

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, 
confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed 
may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you 
have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete 
it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, 
use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to 
monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. 
SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and 
are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home 
Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited 
(Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc 
(Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph 
are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at 
Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.





--
Best regards,
Sakun Alexey
IT department
Infomir Ukraine
tel. +380667955166

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Hannigan, Martin]

Yes, agree. Nice summary.  Not in favor. 

Best, 

Marty

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 15:27, Remco van Mook  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> (no hats)
> 
> I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks 
> the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is 
> so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing 
> themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 
> address space.
> 
> For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably 
> won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going 
> to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is 
> *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at 
> that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the 
> foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long 
> as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that 
> tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.
> 
> Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time 
> could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal 
> mess.
> 
> Remco
> 
> * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this 
> proposal.
> **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your 
> definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major 
> migrations to IPv6.
> 
> 
>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt  wrote:
>> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria",
>> is now available for discussion.
>> 
>> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
>> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
>> 
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>> 
>>   https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>> 
>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
>>  before 18 November 2015.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Marco Schmidt
>> Policy Development Officer
>> RIPE NCC
> 

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Tom Hill  wrote:

> On 20/10/15 14:02, James Blessing wrote:
> > Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before
> > throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
>
> I was thinking the very same, actually.
>
> If we're thinking that the current policy has been too conservative,
> it seems like we should be cautious not to swing too far in the other
> direction (too liberal).
>
>
Here's a thought experiment:

Set aside a /12 pool for this particular purpose.

This means that up to 1024 additional allocation requests may be made.

It means that it is predictable, and according to those who complain the
most about the strict policy, should be more than ample enough to handle
those who think they need more IPv4 space.

There would not need to be any further restrictions than those that are
already in the policy and this proposal.

Pro:

- ensures that we don't accidentally "liberate" our RIR of its current pool
- ensures that small actors get a bit more

Con:

- still unfair to greater LIRs
- only a small pool, which risks being a "oh, cool, it's gone" experiment

-- 
Jan

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:18, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> But there is conflict with 2015-01, was accepted to prevent depletion
> of the free IPv4 pool, wasn't it?
> 

2015-01 was published and adopted in order to prevent abuse... as is the
"no outbound transfers" criteria for further allocations.

> This case we have to create 2015-10 to cancel 2015-01, or change the
> text of this one.

Where do you see an incompatibility between the two ?

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Erik Bais]

> first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get 
> a /16

I fully agree on that.. 

Erik

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Namens Randy 
Bush
Verzonden: dinsdag 20 oktober 2015 16:27
Aan: James Blessing <james.bless...@despres.co.uk>
CC: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of 
Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing
> the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?

first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should
get a /16

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Randy Bush]

> The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as
> far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to
> this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves
> without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address
> space.

remco, you are cheating.  you actually understand the last /8 policy.

this is just the semi-annual squealing from piggies at the trough

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Nick Hilliard]

> 3. An equivalent of a /22 allocation can be requested every 18 months
> from the moment of the last allocation if the following conditions are
> met:
> 1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry.

Is this to be interpreted as:

a) the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry

or

b) the LIR has not registered any IPv4 address space transfer out of its
registry?

Option b is enforceable but largely pointless.

Option a is unenforceable because if the LIR chooses not to register the
transfer, then there is no way for the RIPE NCC to conclusively prove that
a transfer has happened and thus to deny the new allocation.

This proposal as it stands will put selective pressure on LIRs to implement
hidden transfer agreements and then to tell lies to the RIPE NCC in order
to justify getting more IP address space.  This is not good stewardship of
resources.

Nick

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Peter Hessler]

As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8
policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it
allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable
IPv4 space.

While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough
space, I have more sympathy for a business that has zero IP space and
needs one.

I am against this proposal.


[1] Technically, the company had existed for a while with someone else's
IP space, but for practical reasons, the company needed to have an
allocation that belonged to it.


On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 16:27:21 +0200 (+0200), Remco van Mook wrote:
:
:Hi all,
:
:(no hats)
:
:I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks 
the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is 
so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing 
themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address 
space.
:
:For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably 
won???t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going 
to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* 
to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I 
consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that 
IPv6 won???t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we???re still 
talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be 
available for as many organisations as possible.
:
:Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could 
well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.
:
:Remco
:
:* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal.
:**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your 
definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major 
migrations to IPv6.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Denis Fondras]

> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
> out, ...?"
>

Please, give away the last blocks of IPv4 so it really is gone for good.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Lu Heng]

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, remco van mook  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:49 PM Elvis Daniel Velea  > wrote:
>
>> Hi Remco,
>>
>> On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > (no hats)
>> >
>> > I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy
>> looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as
>> intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of
>> establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives
>> for IPv4 address space.
>> We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few
>> presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this
>> topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members
>> registered after 2012 need more than the default /22.
>
>
> Doesn't everyone? There's a reason the minimum allocation size pre-runout
> was never smaller than a /21. As said, the purpose of final /8 is *not* to
> keep doing business as usual - those days are over and are never to return.
> Adding additional discontiguous prefixes form the final /8 pool to existing
> LIRs, aside from being bad engineering, does not provide a scalable
> solution; at the end of the race you now have two separate /22s and as you
> managed to run out of the first one, you'll run out of the second one as
> well.  At the same time it's one less company that is able to get their own
> onramp to the IPv4 internet.
>
>
>> Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a
>> similar policy and it seems to be working just fine.
>> > For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space
>> probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely
>> not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22
>> is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool
>> at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the
>> foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long
>> as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that
>> tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.
>> Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work
>> with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months.
>>
>
> A /22 every 18 months will give 'newish' LIRs (but not the 'newest') a
> single extra /22. Come round 2, there will be none to be had. To me, this
> looks like an extra final cigarette when you resolved to stop smoking. The
> policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the one
> allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already.
>
>
>> >
>> > Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in
>> time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in
>> a legal mess.
>> Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive?
>> This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to
>> it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations
>> already received.
>>
>
> It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or
> so. There's another word for companies that keep new entrants out, but I'm
> pretty desperate to keep that word out of this discussion. Legislation
> takes a dim view.
>
>
>> I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those
>> that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more
>> space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via
>> the transfer market is really high).
>> - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please
>> share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.
>>
>
> Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of
> other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow
> additional NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that
> gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so
> basically, allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and
> good for competition.
>

On the other hand, why not over is over, even a bit v4 is wasted in the end
in a world of v6, who cares?

>
> Best,
>
> Remco
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Randy Bush]

> It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need
> more than the default /22.

what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
out, ...?"

remco said it well.  the last /8 policy is designed so children born
after this apocalypse have a few drops of milk to carry them through
to where they can try to subsist on hard food.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Jim Reid]

On 20 Oct 2015, at 16:33, Dickinson, Ian  wrote:

> We should stick to the approach that allows for new market entrants, and I 
> don't see any value in artificially shortening this period.

+100

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:

   https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05


At last one I can +1 without much headache. 
The idea is not to still have the most unused ipv4 space when

ipv6 is finally the default.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Sleigh, Robert]

Thanks Remco, for your clarity

I'm against this proposal too

Regards

Bob Sleigh


-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf 
Of Hannigan, Martin
Sent: 20 October 2015 15:38
To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net; Remco van Mook
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last 
/8 Allocation Criteria)


Yes, agree. Nice summary.  Not in favor. 

Best, 

Marty

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 15:27, Remco van Mook <remco.vanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> (no hats)
> 
> I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks 
> the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is 
> so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing 
> themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 
> address space.
> 
> For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably 
> won't make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going 
> to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is 
> *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at 
> that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the 
> foresight that IPv6 won't happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long 
> as we're still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that 
> tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.
> 
> Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time 
> could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal 
> mess.
> 
> Remco
> 
> * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this 
> proposal.
> **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your 
> definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major 
> migrations to IPv6.
> 
> 
>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation 
>> Criteria", is now available for discussion.
>> 
>> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional 
>> /22
>> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
>> 
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>> 
>>   https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>> 
>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to 
>> <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Marco Schmidt
>> Policy Development Officer
>> RIPE NCC
> 

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named 
person(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender 
immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for 
any purpose.  
 
We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current 
legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are 
free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses 
do not adversely affect you. 

EE Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Company Registered Number: 02382161
Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, 
Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Dickinson, Ian]

And now I've had the proper time to consider this, I agree with Remco and 
object to this proposal.
We should stick to the approach that allows for new market entrants, and I 
don't see any value in artificially shortening this period.

Ian

-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf 
Of Remco van Mook
Sent: 20 October 2015 15:27
To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last 
/8 Allocation Criteria)


Hi all,

(no hats)

I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks 
the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is 
so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing 
themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address 
space.

For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably 
won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to 
optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to 
be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider 
it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t 
happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about 
IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as 
many organisations as possible.

Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could 
well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.

Remco

* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal.
**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your 
definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major 
migrations to IPv6.


> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria",
> is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
>
> Regards
>
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>

Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, 
confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed 
may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you 
have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete 
it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, 
use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to 
monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. 
SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and 
are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home 
Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited 
(Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc 
(Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph 
are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at 
Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Remco,

On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote:

Hi all,

(no hats)

I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks 
the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is 
so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing 
themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address 
space.
We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few 
presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this 
topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members 
registered after 2012 need more than the default /22.


Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a 
similar policy and it seems to be working just fine.

For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably 
won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to 
optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to 
be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider 
it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t 
happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about 
IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as 
many organisations as possible.
Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work 
with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months.


Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could 
well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.
Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive? 
This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to 
it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations 
already received.


I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those 
that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more 
space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via 
the transfer market is really high).
- would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please 
share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.


Remco

* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal.
**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your 
definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major 
migrations to IPv6.


cheers,
Elvis

On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt  wrote:

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria",
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.

You can find the full proposal at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
 before 18 November 2015.

Regards

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Jim Reid]

On 20 Oct 2015, at 22:18, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
 wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 23:02, Randy Bush wrote:
>> please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including
>> smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity.
> 
> And If I do it, do I get some extra space ? No.

Yes you do. You get oodles of v6 space: way more than enough to run a network 
on the model of one IP address (or allocation) per customer. [So what's 
stopping you? Just go for it!] Applying that model to v4 addresses is no longer 
tenable or viable and hasn't been for a few years now. Get over it.

Besides, there's no RIR policy -- or reason to have one -- which doles out 
extra v4 allocations to LIRs who deploy v6. For some definition of deploy. Feel 
free to suggest such a policy but please be prepared to back it up with hard 
data. BTW the "An LIR must have v6 to get their final /22 of v4" policy does 
not count in this context.

> In the meanwhile remaining v4 space goes where most people can't even 
> imagine

Well there would still be a supply of v4 at the NCC which future generations 
might be able to exploit when they need to connect their IPv6 nets to any 
v4-only curiosities which might still be around 30+ years from now. That's the 
main justification behind the current /8 policy. That policy has consensus 
support in the RIPE region. And with good reason.

If there's a compelling case to justify overturning current policy, it's not 
being made in 2015-05. I'm sure everyone here will be delighted to consider 
that case when someone presents a convincing argument which shows why the 
current policy is defective for the RIPE community as a whole. Over to you...

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 23:02, Randy Bush wrote:
> please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including
> smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity.

And If I do it, do I get some extra space ? No. 
In the meanwhile remaining v4 space goes where most people can't even
imagine

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi,

I tought the /8 policy was designed for new entrants.
I can't see any new entrant owning a /21 or /20 or /19 or /16
So well yes, I think there is a slightly difference from one old LIR to 
another (new entrant) LIR


kind regards
Riccardo

Il 20/10/2015 16:37, Sakun Alexey ha scritto:

Hi!

I also support removing such limitation based on the reached size. I 
think its not fair.
If LIR has /19 - does this mean he dont need more ip addresses? I 
think no.


20.10.2015 17:07, Dickinson, Ian пишет:
I am not yet convinced of this proposal in its entirety, but I am 
definitely against there being limitations based on LIR size of 
allocations (or age for that matter). If we are to do this, it should 
be for all LIRs without such limitation (though I might be ok with 
limits if addressing has been transferred from an LIR recently).


An LIR with a /19 can have need.
An LIR with a /10 equivalent can still have need.

Ian

-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] 
On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

Sent: 20 October 2015 15:00
To: Riccardo Gori; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal 
(Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)


On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote:

I would support it but I would add some text as follows

3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its
registry
[...]

Hi,

This is something that could be done provided there are enough people
"for" and not many people "against".

Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ?

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Information in this email including any attachments may be 
privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the 
addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the 
personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, 
please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your 
system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use 
or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right 
to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external 
networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky 
International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited 
(Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration 
No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 
2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration 
No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are 
incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered 
office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.








--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
Mobile: +39 339 8925947
Mobile: +34 602 009 437

WIREM Fiber Revolution - Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Emilia Ponente, 1667
47522 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285
e-mail: i...@wirem.net


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 Emilia Ponente, 1667 - 47522 Cesena (FC)

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 21:29, remco van mook wrote:
> The policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the
> one allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already.

Which seemed right as long as there was a "needs requirement" and I
belived (many people still do) that it was taken seriously.
It also seemed right until you woke up 30 months later with more than
one /8 in the free pool.
For many people also seemed right as long as they were not aware that
piles of unused v4 blocks will go "on the market", including those
allocated via "last /8 policy". That looks like too much.

> It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or

It's also anti-competitive to keep out people who are looking to sign up
in 2021. All that time you just kept in the dark corner other people
that already signed up (after 09/2012, but not only).

> Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other
> reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional
> NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets
> RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically,
> allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for
> competition.

Returned ? After everything has been done to promote the address-space
market ?

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[remco van mook]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:35 PM Ciprian Nica  wrote:

>
> I totally agree with Remco except this point. I know a large european
> telco that already has bought ~ 2 million IPs so they would be able to
> justify the need for a very large chunk. And, besides that the
> "justified need" was never something objective, it was easy to
> manipulate. We should just say goodbye to needs period and stick with
> one bread each so there's enough for everyone.
>
>
I think I was very specific in saying it is a bad idea for a whole bunch of
other reasons, but if you want to touch 'additional allocations for LIRs'
at all, it would be the one somewhat feasible option.

Which is all the more reason why any proposal to this end is a bad idea.

Best

Remco

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Randy Bush]

>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>> out, ...?"
> Please, give away the last blocks of IPv4 so it really is gone for good.

please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including
smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:44:00PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
Besides, there's no RIR policy 


correct

-- or reason to have one -- 


Isn't "provide an incentive to actually start deploying ipv6
services" a good enough reason? It is in my book.
It certainly provides a much better reward than having 4 or 5
stars on the RIPEness page.

which doles out extra v4 allocations to LIRs who deploy v6. 



If there's a compelling case to justify overturning current
policy, it's not being made in 2015-05. I'm sure everyone here
will be delighted to consider that case when someone presents a
convincing argument which shows why the current policy is
defective for the RIPE community as a whole. Over to you...


Please do not presume to speak for me or "everyone else" for that
matter.

Kind Regards,
Sascha Luck

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Jim Reid]

On 20 Oct 2015, at 23:38, Sascha Luck [ml]  wrote:

> Isn't "provide an incentive to actually start deploying ipv6
> services" a good enough reason? It is in my book.

There's nothing stopping you from writing up and submitting a policy proposal 
which does that.

The reasons for the low levels of IPv6 deployment are many and complex. IMO 
it's highly improbable for tweaks or special incentives in RIR IPv4 allocation 
policy could be a significant factor. YMMV. That's probably a discussion for 
another forum than this list.

>> If there's a compelling case to justify overturning current
>> policy, it's not being made in 2015-05. I'm sure everyone here
>> will be delighted to consider that case when someone presents a
>> convincing argument which shows why the current policy is
>> defective for the RIPE community as a whole. Over to you...
> 
> Please do not presume to speak for me or "everyone else" for that matter.

I'm sorry for presuming that this WG welcomes and develops sound policy 
proposals. If that's no longer the consensus view of the WG, I apologise.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
> out, ...?"

Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
It IS over in ARIN-land (unless 23.128/10 ...).

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Aleksey Bulgakov]

Dear, all.

I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on
current resource number and age of the LIR.

E.g.
LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent
Or
First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc.

I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good.

2015-10-20 17:46 GMT+03:00 Peter Hessler :
> As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8
> policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it
> allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable
> IPv4 space.
>
> While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough
> space, I have more sympathy for a business that has zero IP space and
> needs one.
>
> I am against this proposal.
>
>
> [1] Technically, the company had existed for a while with someone else's
> IP space, but for practical reasons, the company needed to have an
> allocation that belonged to it.
>
>
> On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 16:27:21 +0200 (+0200), Remco van Mook wrote:
> :
> :Hi all,
> :
> :(no hats)
> :
> :I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks 
> the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is 
> so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing 
> themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 
> address space.
> :
> :For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably 
> won???t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going 
> to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is 
> *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at 
> that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the 
> foresight that IPv6 won???t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long 
> as we???re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that 
> tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.
> :
> :Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time 
> could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal 
> mess.
> :
> :Remco
> :
> :* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this 
> proposal.
> :**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your 
> definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major 
> migrations to IPv6.
>



-- 
--
Best regards,
Aleksey Bulgakov
Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Tomasz Śląski @ KEBAB]

W dniu 2015-10-20 o 16:56, Aleksey Bulgakov pisze:

Dear, all.

I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on
current resource number and age of the LIR.

E.g.
LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent
Or
First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc.

I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good.



Do you think, that the remaining space from last /8 is made of rubber?

--
Tomasz Śląski
pl.skonet

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Tore Anderson]

Hi David,

* David Monosov 

> The last /8 allocation criteria is there to ensure an orderly
> transition is possible for as long as possible, and the fact we now
> expect it to last longer than originally anticipated is further
> demonstration of its efficacy.

I'm not really certain if we can expect it to last longer than
originally anticipated, even. I suppose it depends on what one
anticipated in the first place. I anticipated (or hoped, rather) for a
duration of about 10 years.

The best analysis of its remaining lifetime that I'm aware of is the
recently published RIPE Labs article¹ which suggests a remaining
lifetime of approx. ~5½ years (and this includes future piecemeal
allocations from IANA and expected returns from the membership).

[1] 
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv4-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region-three-years-after-reaching-the-last-8

If accurate, that would mean the total lifetime of the somewhat
misleadingly named «last /8» policy would end up being ~8½ years. 1½
years less than the 10 I had originally hoped for.

There is no doubt that 2015-05 would reduce the remaining life
expectancy of the «last /8» policy even further. Considering that the
"last /8" is already expected to last for a shorter time than what I
had hoped for, I cannot support 2015-05.

Tore

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:02:38PM +0100, James Blessing wrote:
> On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
> 
> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing
> the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?

We're in discussion phase right now, so everything goes... :-) - this is
really the phase where a proposal test the waters to see if it is generally
acceptable (potentially with minor corrections), needs larger surgery, or 
is a total no-go...

(As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how
many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space"
and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date ;) )

gert
-- 
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


pgpJQV8RsaG7_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Peter Hessler]

On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote:
:https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

>From the proposed text:
  5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation

Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"?  Is it a
single /22?

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi James, Gert,

On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:02:38PM +0100, James Blessing wrote:

On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt  wrote:


 https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing
the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?

not a bad idea, I like it.

We're in discussion phase right now, so everything goes... :-) - this is
really the phase where a proposal test the waters to see if it is generally
acceptable (potentially with minor corrections), needs larger surgery, or
is a total no-go...
let's collect the feedback and see if we need to come back with a second 
version.


(As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how
many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space"
and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date ;) )
Let's not forget that the crystal ball is just that... a guess. Nobody 
can predict how long will the free pool last.

- I hope this also answers Lu's question/comment.

gert

cheers,
elvis

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi,

On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:

On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote:
:https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

 From the proposed text:
   5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation

Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"?  Is it a
single /22?

good question. Not sure what would happen if a single /22 is no longer 
available. My intention would be for the last allocation to be the 
remaining crumbs (even if less than a /22).


Currently, the proposal's intention is to allow allocations lower than a 
/22 as long as the total would be 1024 IPs.


regards,
elvis

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Lu Heng]

I agree it is a guess, but also should be an easy estimation(not very
accure one but rough one) if we taking burning rate of past 36 month into
account. I think NCC can clearify this future.

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, Elvis Daniel Velea  wrote:

> Hi James, Gert,
>
> On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:02:38PM +0100, James Blessing wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
>>>
>>>  https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

>>> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing
>>> the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
>>>
>> not a bad idea, I like it.
>
>> We're in discussion phase right now, so everything goes... :-) - this is
>> really the phase where a proposal test the waters to see if it is
>> generally
>> acceptable (potentially with minor corrections), needs larger surgery, or
>> is a total no-go...
>>
> let's collect the feedback and see if we need to come back with a second
> version.
>
>>
>> (As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how
>> many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space"
>> and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date
>> ;) )
>>
> Let's not forget that the crystal ball is just that... a guess. Nobody can
> predict how long will the free pool last.
> - I hope this also answers Lu's question/comment.
>
>> gert
>>
> cheers,
> elvis
>
>

-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[James Blessing]

On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt  wrote:

> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing
the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?

J
-- 

James Blessing
07989 039 476

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Garry Glendown]

Guten Tag,
> On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote:
> :https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>
> From the proposed text:
>   5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation
>
> Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"?  Is it a
> single /22?
>
According to the proposal I'd say yes ... of course, that's the basic
use case of a pool - to use it.

Anyway, maybe I have overlooked it, but there doesn't seem to be a
provision as to whether an actual need is documented, e.g. less than 25%
free of currently assigned space or less than 1 /24 available, whichever
is less.

-garry

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[h . lu]

Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on the 
other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would not support 
it.

> On 20 Oct 2015, at 1:46 PM, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria",
> is now available for discussion.
> 
> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
>  before 18 November 2015.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Tom Hill]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 20/10/15 14:02, James Blessing wrote:
> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before
> throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?

I was thinking the very same, actually.

If we're thinking that the current policy has been too conservative,
it seems like we should be cautious not to swing too far in the other
direction (too liberal).

- -- 
Tom Hill
Network Engineer

Bytemark Hosting
http://www.bytemark.co.uk/
tel. +44 1904 890 890
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWJj57AAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ667cIAKqXrjTZ6G8INUXbLWoyX9Si
za3OLzLUUA1bXwMffhzXkPhbDx5LWSosXuuFOkys2J3UgyvSyAN2OPhdwoPteblN
xr9RZUPaIkzhSLJEA+2tvABvW5OvCGJ298K8OnEjIWZpp/Oh/fsMbfETrqCE4nau
GxbT8mIxWG9oqdrpAU1TuQces6AYasJvvcXK1bkvkTMTgurXqITuPjb+EaTasADE
Reo4A0O9RnLgRVMElVcNP61DWNpZp/WOLSqBH8rlzI0nexySAZAvQteSnfDkL/vi
YQcTQP6SNSD//aOp4MycRfj9QIHniyhpWRYH/+z0LJ+oxiHwwMpquSP3O9oWKhY=
=gteR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Tom Smyth]

Hello

The Condition "   1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out
of its
registry."
 is very important to prevent abuse,

however can the text be revised to say "  1. The LIR has not transferred
any IPv4 address space to any other entity"

pardon my ignorance but im confused by the exact meaning of "out of its
registry" in the condtion 1,

Thanks
Tom Smyth





On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Peter Hessler  wrote:

> On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote:
> :https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>
> From the proposed text:
>   5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation
>
> Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"?  Is it a
> single /22?
>
>


-- 
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 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:06, Peter Hessler wrote:
> On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote:
> :https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
> 
> From the proposed text:
>   5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the
>   allocation
> 
> Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"?  Is it a
> single /22?

A /22 or equivalent.
Given de structure of the remaining space, the "or equivalent" shouldn't
may times (if ever).

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs