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

[Carsten Schiefner]

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)

[Carsten Brückner]

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)

[Tore Anderson]

* Riccardo Gori

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

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

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

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

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

Tore

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

[Wilhelm Boeddinghaus]

Am 12.05.2016 um 15:48 schrieb Randy Bush:

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

randy


Well said.

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


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


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


Wilhelm

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

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Peter,


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

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

First you say this.

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

And then you say this.


You seem to be contradicting yourself in the same email.

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




regards
Riccardo
--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to i...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

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

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Randy,

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


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

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

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

randy



--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to i...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

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

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Sander,

thank you for your answer


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

Hi Riccardo,


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

I can answer that one.

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




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

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



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

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

[...]

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




Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03:

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


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

Cheers,
Sander

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


regards
Riccardo

--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to i...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

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

[Marco Schmidt]

Dear Remco and Radu-Adrian,

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

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

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




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

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


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


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


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


Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

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

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

Cheers!
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Randy Bush]

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

randy

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

[Mozafary Mohammad]

Hi

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


Thanks


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

Hi Riccardo,


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

I can answer that one.

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

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

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


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

Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03:

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


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

Cheers,
Sander

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Riccardo,

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

I can answer that one.

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

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


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

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


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

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Riccardo Gori]

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 FEURDEAN 
 wrote:

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Remco van Mook]

Arash,



> On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash Naderpour  wrote:
> 
> 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)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Riccardo Gori  wrote:

>
> 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)

[Riccardo Gori]

Il 11/05/2016 09:02, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Randy Bush  wrote:

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)

[Randy Bush]

> 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)

[Arash Naderpour]

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)

[Randy Bush]

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)

[Arash Naderpour]

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)

[Arash Naderpour]

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)

[Randy Bush]

> 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)

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Roger,


Il 21/04/2016 08:40, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
 wrote:

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)

[Nick Hilliard]

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)

[Adrian Pitulac]

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)

[Rob Evans]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Nick Hilliard]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Denis Fondras]

> 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)

[Stepan Kucherenko]

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)

[Randy Bush]

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)

[Adrian Pitulac]

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)

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Tim Chown]

> On 21 Apr 2016, at 11:38, Stepan Kucherenko  wrote:
> 
> 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)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
 wrote:
> 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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Riccardo Gori]

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)

[Gert Doering]

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)

[Riccardo Gori]

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)

[Riccardo Gori]

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 Holen  wrote:

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)

[Ingrid Wijte]

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 Holen  wrote:

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)

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Roger,

Il 20/04/2016 11:00, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Hans Petter Holen  wrote:

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)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
 wrote:

> 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)

[Riccardo Gori]

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)

[Jim Reid]

> On 19 Apr 2016, at 23:21, Hans Petter Holen  wrote:
> 
> 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)

[Hans Petter Holen]

  
  
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)

[Hans Petter Holen]

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)

[Hans Petter Holen]

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)

[Lu Heng]

Hi

On Wednesday 20 April 2016, Hans Petter Holen  wrote:

> 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)

[Hans Petter Holen]

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)

[Hans Petter Holen]

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)

[Adrian Pitulac]

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)

[Riccardo Gori]

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)

[Guy Chilton]

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)

[Carsten Schiefner]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[dani...@viaturchetta.it]

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)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

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)

[Tim Chown]

> 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)

[Momchil Petrov]

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)

[Lu Heng]

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)

[Gert Doering]

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)

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Adrian Pitulac  wrote:
>
>
> 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)

[Adrian Pitulac]

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)

[Adrian Pitulac]

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)

[Randy Bush]

>> 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)

[Lu Heng]

On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > 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)

[Randy Bush]

> 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)

[h . lu]

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 Morris  wrote:
> 
>> 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)

[Jim Reid]

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 16:35, Adrian Pitulac  wrote:
> 
> 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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Adrian Pitulac]

On 16 Apr 2016, at 13:48, Adrian Pitulac  wrote:

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)

[Dominik Nowacki]

> 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)

[Servereasy]

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)

[Adrian Pitulac]

>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.



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)

[Jim Reid]

> 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)

[Riccardo Gori]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Jim Reid]

> 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)

[Nick Hilliard]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Tom Smyth]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[remco.vanm...@gmail.com]

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" 
To: "Randy Bush" , "Marco Schmidt" 
Cc: "RIPE address policy WG" 
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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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)

[Servereasy]

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)

[h . lu]

Hi

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 02:23, Gert Doering  wrote:
> 
> 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