Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 14:52, Peter Hessler wrote: > The 23.128/10 block is ONLY for /24-/28 allocations. These are not A /24 every 6 months (provided that conditions keep being fulfilled). Because less than /24 is pretty much useless. > intended as general purpose IP blocks, and are ONLY

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On 2016 May 11 (Wed) at 14:42:02 +0200 (+0200), Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: :On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 08:53, Gert Doering wrote: : :> Would you have preferred the ARIN way? "Oops, we have reached :> exhaustion, nothing left, good buy to new entrants"? : :My understanding is that ARIN is not yet

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 08:53, Gert Doering wrote: > Would you have preferred the ARIN way? "Oops, we have reached > exhaustion, nothing left, good buy to new entrants"? My understanding is that ARIN is not yet "dry". There still is some space available within 23.128.0.0/10 under NRPM 4.10

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi, >>> What about those holding large space and changed the policy to be >>> triggered when reaced a last /8 and not before? >>> Looks like eating the chocolate top cover of the cake and leave the dry >>> part to the others. Here's your crumbs we are very respective. >> Would you have preferred

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi Gert, Il 11/05/2016 08:53, Gert Doering ha scritto: Hi, On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:51:21AM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22". What about those holding large

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi, On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:51:21AM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: > > Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years with > > no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22". > What about those holding large space and changed the policy to be > triggered when

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi Sander, Hi Peter, Il 09/05/2016 14:50, Sander Steffann ha scritto: Hi Peter, My main objection to this proposal is simple: It depletes the available pool for _new_ participants faster. I strongly believe any new actor should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Goodmorning Enrico, thank you for your opinion Il 10/05/2016 09:18, Enrico Diacci ha scritto: Hi Riccardo, This policy is so good in 2 main things: - address the problem of customers make the customers giving new entrants a little bit more space to handle their grow and customer

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > - Second, right now the NCC is just handing out /22 to whoever can > pay for them (with only a small extra administrative restriction > during the last 6 months). For me this is plain "selling IP > addresses" (concept that the NCC avoided like hell int the past), and > it

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi all, Thank you for clarifying Niall. I suggest then that the original proposer weigh into this process with his/her suggestions on going forward and potentially incorporating this recommendation to split the proposal into two parts. Best, -Michael __ Michael J. Oghia

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On 10 May 2016, at 14:27, Michael Oghia wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been following the discussion and I strongly support Jan's > suggestion, especially since the bulk of the contention seems to be with > what Jan describes as Part B. Does anyone know if it is possible to split > the proposal into

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 08:15, Denis Fondras wrote: > Why wouldn't a LIR get some space on the secondary market to provide to > its customers ? Because: - for a small LIR it's still too expensive (usual quote is 11-13 USD/IP for /22 to /24) - there is some risk of "bad quality IPs"

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi all, I have been following the discussion and I strongly support Jan's suggestion, especially since the bulk of the contention seems to be with what Jan describes as Part B. Does anyone know if it is possible to split the proposal into two parts? Best, -Michael __ Michael J.

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 14:50, Sander Steffann wrote: > > Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years > > with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi, On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 14:50, Sander Steffann wrote: > Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years > with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22". I find the situation a little more complex than that: - First, the "in a few years with no IPv4"

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

> (note: my stance is based on forming a LIR simply to get any amount of > announcable addresses.) Hi, With a few drawbacks - more de-aggregation, (much) more complex policy - that could be achieved (without speeding up depletion). However, a lot of people let me understand that complexity is a

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

> Yes they can, but if they are really interested to make their LIR job. > If the only motivation of new-comers is to get some IPv4 as their internet > service provider is not able to provide them with any, there would no do LIR > job. (new RIPE NCC members are not necessarily from IT industry

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Benoit [mailto:benoit-li...@fb12.de] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 5:07 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_...@parsun.com> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement Hi, Arash Naderpour(arash_...@parsun.com) on 2016.05.09 23:25:56

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi, This policy may actually reduce the depletion rate for last /8, but without it the last /8 can be used more day by day. In the real world, even when a customer needs for example an /24, they need to become an LIR (and get the /22 from the last /8) as their old LIR cannot provide them with

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On Mon, 9 May 2016, Sander Steffann wrote: Hi Peter, My main objection to this proposal is simple: It depletes the available pool for _new_ participants faster. I strongly believe any new actor should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available from RIPE. For an actor

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi Peter, > My main objection to this proposal is simple: It depletes the available > pool for _new_ participants faster. I strongly believe any new actor > should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available > from RIPE. For an actor with non-zero addresses to get more

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On 2016 May 09 (Mon) at 14:19:43 +0200 (+0200), Riccardo Gori wrote: :Hi Sander, : :Il 09/05/2016 10:42, Sander Steffann ha scritto: :>Hello Ehsan, :> :>>we are agree about the Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal . :>>https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 :>thank

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi Sander, Il 09/05/2016 10:42, Sander Steffann ha scritto: Hello Ehsan, we are agree about the Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal . https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 thank you for expressing your support. However, at this point in the discussion we have

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hello Ehsan, > we are agree about the Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal . > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 thank you for expressing your support. However, at this point in the discussion we have seen enough support but not enough work solving the

[address-policy-wg] agreement

-Original Message- From: "Ehsan Behbahani" To: a...@ripe.net Date: Sun, 08 May 2016 17:39:44 +0430 Subject: agreement Hi we are agree about theLast /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal . https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05