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

Hi Arash - On 13.05.2016 03:01, Arash Naderpour wrote: > That's not true, I know some LIRs qualified for /22 not requesting it > and they are not running on auto-pilot (there are fully aware of the > market situation) OK, even then: your point is? Do you empty your bank account the second your

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

Hi everyone, I agree with Wilhelms arguments and I want to add my personal thoughts about 2015-05. I dont think that it is a good thing, if depletation of the RIPE NCCs IPv4 address pool will speed up and in my opinion it is the wrong signal to support the NCCs members with the historical

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

* Riccardo Gori > Thank you to all old LIRs that didn't request their last /22 so I had > the oportunity to request for it early Jan/2015. Marco estimated that the pool would last for around five years under the current policy[1]. For the sake of the argument, let's assume he's spot on, to the

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

Am 12.05.2016 um 15:48 schrieb Randy Bush: it's not just our grandchildren. if the last /8 policy had not been put in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get IPv4 space. randy Well said. Look at the other RIRs who cannot offer any IPv4 space to new members.

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

Hi Peter, Il 12/05/2016 18:15, Peter Hessler ha scritto: On 2016 May 12 (Thu) at 18:00:07 +0200 (+0200), Riccardo Gori wrote: :We are proposing to help LIRs to gain some sustainability of their new :businesses. First you say this. :again many thanks to all LIRs that didn't request their last

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

Hi Randy, that's why we (defined somewhere pigs) are not rewriting base concept of "last /8" We are proposing to help LIRs to gain some sustainability of their new businesses. This is 'cause some LIRs in the past eated almost all the space and created stockpiles of unused space and some years

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

Hi Sander, thank you for your answer Il 12/05/2016 14:16, Sander Steffann ha scritto: Hi Riccardo, Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time? I can answer that one. For 2010-02

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

Dear Remco and Radu-Adrian, On 11/05/2016 23:21, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: (if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so) Please ! Since it's not easy to find the following information: - if a LIR received or not it's "last /22" (cannot distinguish from one that

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

Hi, > Op 12 mei 2016, om 15:48 heeft Randy 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

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

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

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

Hi The suggested Rule is a way to support new and small LIR, There is many small LIR they need new IP addresses, The Rule can help them. Thanks On 5/12/2016 3:46 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: Hi Riccardo, Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such policy was

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

Hi Riccardo, > Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such > policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time? I can answer that one. For 2010-02 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02) the WG started working down from one /8.

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

Goodmoring Remco, I read that you don't want to comment more about 2015-05. I'll respect you and I won't wait for an answer and we can leave everything for a quick chat in Copenhagen but I have to leave my comment on your analisys. In your example you suppose that every LIR under a /20 will

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

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 21:53, Remco van Mook wrote: > OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers: > > Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1) > Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1) I'm OK with that. > New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3) > Budgeted membership

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

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote: > Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to > 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than > half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - > effectively this

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

Arash, > On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash 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

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

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Riccardo 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. > > > > >

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

Il 11/05/2016 09:02, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Randy 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

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

> P.S my understanding from 2015-05 is that it divides the current pool > into 2 separate parts, last allocation of /8 and additional free IP > pool received from IANA. that's nice. as i said a bit ago, you may want to read the last /8 policy and not start trying to redifine terms.

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

om] 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

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

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

[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)

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

ehalf 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

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

> For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the > solution is not working yet" situation. what solution is not working for you? randy, running v6 commercially since '97

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

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > You are talking about people addicted to Coca-Cola. You can't just ask > them to plain stop drinking Coca-Cola, as long as you have some (and > even if you no longer have, it's still difficult).

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

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 18:00, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > > I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, > > no matter what" approach. > > For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the > > solution is not working yet"

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

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 17:37, Nick Hilliard wrote: > As a separate issue, the RIPE NCC is not in the business of telling its > members how to run their networks. Still a somehow separate issue, it shouldn't be in the "sell IPs" business neither, but it looks like it's exactly what it's doing

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

Hi Roger, Il 21/04/2016 08:40, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Radu-Adrian 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

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

Adrian Pitulac wrote: > I think this has not been expressed directly, but IPv6 implementation > obligations in this policy might be the reason why it could be MUCH > better than existing policy who offers the opportunities for future > entrants but does not have a long term solution for the real

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

On 22/04/16 16:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: Regarding the current allocation policies, you still have not addressed the query that several people have raised about why it is better to shut off opportunities for future internet service market entrants than it is to make things marginally easier for a

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

Hi, > I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, > no matter what" approach. > For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the > solution is not working yet" situation. > Pain management. The only solution right now is pain suppressors. Some >

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

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 15:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Regarding the current allocation policies, you still have not addressed > the query that several people have raised about why it is better to shut > off opportunities for future internet service market entrants than it is > to make things

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

Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > You are talking about people addicted to Coca-Cola. You can't just ask > them to plain stop drinking Coca-Cola, as long as you have some (and > even if you no longer have, it's still difficult). People can be as addicted to using ipv4 addresses as they want. It

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

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 10:46, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but > there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial > IPv4 allocation was made. But with additional allocation it IS possible > to check if they

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

> Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but there > is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial IPv4 > allocation was made. > Can you elaborate a bit please ? Denis

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

On 22.04.2016 11:05, Randy Bush wrote: believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert their infrastructure, oss, back ends,

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

believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that decision is

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

Jan, Allow me to translate this to your way of seeing it.. :) Coca-Cola is ending soon, so no one could get any.. There are parties who never drank water, so based on the the policy, they are given a little coca-cola if they start drinking water (IPv6). This if in their help so they can get

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

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You > can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???) > This is a part of reasoning I don't understand. "We would like for you

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

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 12:38, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > > They have to deal with that anyway sooner or later. Also it might become > an additional pressure, "our rivals have this strange thing called IPv6 > on their site, can we do it too?". At which point I prefer being in the situation of

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

> On 21 Apr 2016, at 11:38, Stepan 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

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

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

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

Hi, On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 16:55, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > Why not just check for record for their main site and mention of > IPv6 somewhere, like "/X for every customer on every tariff" or > something similar depending on the market ? > > It may put enough pressure for them to

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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >IIRC, the triggering of the "last /8" policy (as it has usually been > known) >did not coincide with receipt of 185/8 from (NB: not "by") IANA by > RIPE NCC, >but rather with the first allocation by RIPE NCC from 185/8. 185/8

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

Hi Gert, Il 20/04/2016 13:22, Gert Doering ha scritto: Hi, On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 01:14:16PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: sorry but maybe this feeds the confusion about last /8 appling only to 185/8 or the whole RIPE available pool There was confusion about this in the past, so the NCC

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

Hi, On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 01:14:16PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: > sorry but maybe this feeds the confusion about last /8 appling only to > 185/8 or the whole RIPE available pool There was confusion about this in the past, so the NCC consulted the working group, we discussed it here on the

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

But Niall, I have to admit that these two statement at point 5.3 confuses me a bit: [...] 5.3 Address Recycling Any address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC will be covered by the same rules as the address space intended in section 5.1. This section only applies to address space that is

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

Dear Ingrid, thank you for you help Il 20/04/2016 12:09, Ingrid Wijte ha scritto: Dear Riccardo, (I am responding on behalf of Andrea, who is currently traveling). We just wanted to confirm that Hans Petter and Roger are correct. The policy text you quoted was designed to allow address

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

Dear Riccardo, (I am responding on behalf of Andrea, who is currently traveling). We just wanted to confirm that Hans Petter and Roger are correct. The policy text you quoted was designed to allow address space to be returned to IANA. It does not refer to the way that the RIPE NCC should

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

Hi Roger, Il 20/04/2016 11:00, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Hans Petter 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

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

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

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

Hi Hans, good morning list, I think there is no confusion. section 5.3 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649 [...] 5.3 Address Recycling Any address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC will be covered by the same rules as the address space intended in section 5.1. This section

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

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

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

On 16.04.2016 12.29, remco.vanm...@gmail.com wrote: This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start

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

On 15.04.2016 00.50, remco van mook wrote: a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, I would be interested to see how this can be done effectively. As a matter of transparency I think it is important to understand all the aspects of this. The

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

On 14.04.2016 22.07, Erik Bais wrote: but the difference is an issue of fully running out within 18 months or 5.3 years. Thanks for a very useful analysis Erik. I think this is the key point - does the community want to put priority short term or longer term? -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47

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

Hi On Wednesday 20 April 2016, Hans Petter 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

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

On 15.04.2016 20.59, Adrian Pitulac wrote: I'm more inclining to believe that certain old LIR's made a big business from this, by creating an artificial market and then sold their free ip pools on the market for a hefty profit. I do not think this is the case. What I see is that old LIRs

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

On 14.04.2016 18.13, Jim Reid wrote: I know companies who've done this. It isn't sensible. True. But the NCC has ways to deal with those sorts of bad actors. Besides, the checks on a new LIR raise a reasonably high barrier for those who try to game the system in this way. No. I work for a

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

On 18/04/16 18:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Adrian Pitulac wrote: Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get another IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small entities to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing

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

Hi Carten, Il 17/04/2016 23:59, Carsten Schiefner ha scritto: Riccardo, On 15.04.2016 07:48, Riccardo Gori wrote: with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8 policy. We are dealing with the same amount of space as September 2012 so it works as designed me thinks.

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

Hello, I've read the proposal and arguments for and against and indeed all the various different opinions presented. Although I can see some merit to support the proposal from a needs based perspective and use of reclaimed addresses. Personally I cannot however ignore the fact that new LIR's

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

On 15.04.2016 00:33, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote: > >> I strongly disagree with the proposal > > what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. > Well said, Jim. Ad idem. Best, -C.

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

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 10:42, Lu Heng wrote: > As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP > refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the > very definition of LIR. > > The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that > group

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

I am in favor this policy Daniela = Daniela Catellani +39 338 8986361 dani...@viaturchetta.it

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

t;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) >&

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

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 12:36, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 16:09, Tim Chown wrote: > >> As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new >> venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing. > > This is a

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

i'll try to see in the future... Small LIR will register on different company (or daughter) LIR just to take a "only one /22" many other companies will becoma a LIR just to take v4 IPs. It's cheaper than >10 EUR/ip, right (this is already happening). Imagine after some period of time how much

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

Hi I think an more interesting break down would be the companies' business(e.g the industry they are in) As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the very definition of LIR. The outbreak in the member

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

Hi, On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 09:52:15AM +0300, Adrian Pitulac wrote: > I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real > argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just > "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that? Marco has provided

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

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Adrian 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

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

On 17/04/16 10:01, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Adrian Pitulac > wrote: I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction,

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

On 17/04/16 05:50, Randy Bush wrote: well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which seem to come up every year, flood the mailing

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. >

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

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

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

> I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 > policy from today on". that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into bureaucratic insanity and drowned it. we could try it here. randy

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

Hey I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 policy from today on". All those growth thing, when was last time you saw a property developer complaint to Gov that he can not grow his business because he can not get free land? No one would be stopped doing business

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

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 16:35, Adrian 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

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

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016, at 13:36, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > > wrote: > > > > ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" > > equals no business. > > And these other markets are either dead

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

On 16 Apr 2016, at 13:48, Adrian 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

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

dress-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

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

As we all know, there are lot of big LIRs with plenty of unused (or wasted) space, and now they are making serious business selling their classes. With a current price of about 10€/IP, it's easy to understand how big are interests behind this: some LIRs could make M€ just by selling something

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

>On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote: >> >>I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to >>fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there

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

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > wrote: > > ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" > equals no business. And these other markets are either dead or dying because there is no more IPv4. Some might survive if

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

Hi Nick, everyone is aware that fairness is a relative concept. What we mean in this proposal is that actual policy is encouraging transfer market in some way 'cause there is a transfert market to feed. Is someone asks for space because of need he won't sell outside the resource just to make

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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 16:09, Tim Chown wrote: > As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new > venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing. Tim, This is a good way not to start a business, and if you still do it, not to have many customers. No matter how

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

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to >> fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so

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

Riccardo Gori wrote: > I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier > exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing > it to grow. It was only a matter of time before someone pulled out the word "fair". "Fair" is a hugely subjective term best left to

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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:41, Gert Doering wrote: > If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small Gert, ARIN didn't run out dry (contrary to the popular behaviour). They barely entered some sort of "last /10" (23.128.0.0/10) , which is very restrictive. --

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

I was in support of relaxing the allocation rules for existing lirs as long as the organisation that might benefit from extra IPs did transfer ( or Sell ) IP space previously allocated, to prevent further abuse. But I can see the principal of protecting Ip space for new entrants is much fairer

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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:33, Tim Chown wrote: > > there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption. > > Really? What incentive ? A black T-Shirt ? (for the record, I preferred the blue one handed out ~2010-2012).

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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:16, Peter Hessler wrote: > Growth into a market that should be killed, should not be encouraged by RIPE. What you are actually saying is the "Internet Access for Small Business" market should be killed. A "softer" interpretation would be that it should be left to

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

dress policy WG" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Date: Sat, Apr 16, 2016 11:53 On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote: > the purpose of the single last /8 alloc

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 07:48, Riccardo Gori wrote: > We are dealing with the same amount of space as September 2012 that in > the meanwhile has been abused in several ways and there are really no > incentives to IPv6 adoption. > > There was only one requirement to obtain one IPv4 /22:

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

Hi Erik, On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 22:07, Erik Bais wrote: > If we currently have about 12.000 members .. and hand out additional > /22’s to each of them, it will cost 12 milj addresses ( more or less..) > ( as it would be more fair than discriminating on current size and age of > an LIR … )

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

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote: > the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY. The *single* "last /8" (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most people consider new entry. Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve "new

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

Hi, On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:17, Dickinson, Ian wrote: > I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop. We > have a working policy, and we should stick with it. I'm not sure everyone has the same view of "working". > Anyway, I’ve registered my objection – I’m done

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

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote: > > I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to > fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there > will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? > years from now. Unless

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

This is already happening, since IPv4 price on the market is too high. Il 16/04/2016 05:20, h...@anytimechinese.com ha scritto: IPv4 price will be one day high enough that make sense opening more LIR than buy in the market. -- Saverio Giuntini Servereasy di Giuntini Saverio Amministrazione e

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

Hi > On 16 Apr 2016, at 02:23, Gert 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,

  1   2   >