Re: [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Yuri,

> If you will look into the future - all last 185 will be FINAL.
> And all LIRs will have to return the space or use it and pay to RIPE for
> usage even they work as with PIs as PI.
> reserved space also will be FINAL.
> 
> But then after some due to space exchange under ripe more and more space
> will become FINAL. So transfer policy will conflict with the space.

You seem to be under the false impression that all space transferred will also 
be marked ALLOCATED FINAL. This is incorrect, this policy only marks the /22s 
handed out by RIPE NCC as such.

> My opinion - just make easier for new companies to get IPs until RIPE
> has it and RIPE has enough. So I don't understand why to make life
> harder but not easier.

This is out of scope. We already discussed a policy that tried that and it 
didn't get consensus.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Daniel Suchy  wrote:

> Hello,
>

Hello,


>
> Do we really want do block new organisations with new allocations, but
> allow old (happy) one to do anything with addresses tehy have...? That's
> not fair.
>

I'm afraid that "fair" in that regard, is impossible to achieve.


> There're organisations, which have large allocations and they're
> sometimes not taking care - they have enough IPv4 addresses, nothing is
> pushing them to implement IPv6, or save address space by implementation
> of some NAT solution. If they decide to sell their business, policy will
> allow that - but, if "new" resource holder will try similar thing,
> policy will ban then?
>

No, the new policy does not ban selling their business (merger/acquisition).

My point is simple - there should be ONLY ONE POLICY - independent on
> time of allocation. Such policy must limit not only new LIRs (using
> addresses from last /8), but also old LIRs holding addresses from old
> allocations.
>

Why do you want to do that?


>
> And if we really want to reclaim some address space, we should review
> current allocations - in terms of current situation in IPv4 world.
>
>
How do you propose to go about that?

-- 
Jan

Re: [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0

[NTX NOC]

+1

On 19.06.2016 0:38, Daniel Suchy wrote:
> Do we really want do block new organisations with new allocations, but
> allow old (happy) one to do anything with addresses tehy have...? That's
> not fair.

+1

>There're organisations, which have large allocations and they're
>sometimes not taking care - they have enough IPv4 addresses, nothing is
>pushing them to implement IPv6, or save address space by implementation
>of some NAT solution. If they decide to sell their business, policy will
>allow that - but, if "new" resource holder will try similar thing,
>policy will ban then?

Yuri@NTX

Re: [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0

[NTX NOC]

If you will look into the future - all last 185 will be FINAL.
And all LIRs will have to return the space or use it and pay to RIPE for
usage even they work as with PIs as PI.
reserved space also will be FINAL.

But then after some due to space exchange under ripe more and more space
will become FINAL. So transfer policy will conflict with the space.

My opinion - just make easier for new companies to get IPs until RIPE
has it and RIPE has enough. So I don't understand why to make life
harder but not easier.


Yuri@NTX

On 18.06.2016 23:45, Ondřej Caletka wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:
>> Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 
>> space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that 
>> tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire 
>> allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple 
>> of years from now.
> 
> Hello list,
> 
> I support this version of 2016-03. I think the allocations made after
> entering the post-depletion phase (that could be maybe a better name
> than the "last /8") should be either used for operating a network or
> returned to RIPE NCC.
> 
> Since there used to be a needs-based policy for pre-depletion
> allocations, stockpiling addresses for the sole purpose of selling them
> in the future was not as trivial as it is now. One had to not only have
> enough money but also cheat in the needs evaluation process.Now, when
> the needs-based approach is gone, we need something else to conserve at
> least something for new players for as long as possible.
> 
> I also like the idea of special status "ALLOCATED FINAL". I think it is
> a good starting point for the AGM to adopt a charging scheme which would
> require additional recurring fee for LIRs holding more than one such
> allocation. This is IMHO the only way how to prevent people from opening
> new LIRs as a better alternative to the IPv4 market.
> 

Re: [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0

[Ondřej Caletka]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:
> Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 
> space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that 
> tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire 
> allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple 
> of years from now.

Hello list,

I support this version of 2016-03. I think the allocations made after
entering the post-depletion phase (that could be maybe a better name
than the "last /8") should be either used for operating a network or
returned to RIPE NCC.

Since there used to be a needs-based policy for pre-depletion
allocations, stockpiling addresses for the sole purpose of selling them
in the future was not as trivial as it is now. One had to not only have
enough money but also cheat in the needs evaluation process.Now, when
the needs-based approach is gone, we need something else to conserve at
least something for new players for as long as possible.

I also like the idea of special status "ALLOCATED FINAL". I think it is
a good starting point for the AGM to adopt a charging scheme which would
require additional recurring fee for LIRs holding more than one such
allocation. This is IMHO the only way how to prevent people from opening
new LIRs as a better alternative to the IPv4 market.

-- 
Best regards

Ondřej Caletka
An Internet user, who still haven't opened his own Internet-based
business


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature