Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi, am 22.09.2017 um 16:50 schrieb Anna Wilson: > Hi Tom, > >> On 22 Sep 2017, at 15:37, Tom Hill > > wrote: >> >> Because I don't see a way in which this policy will change anyone's >> behaviour, or incentivise them differently over the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hello WG, the discussion shows that there are a lot of pros and cons about this proposal. But the strongest argument for me is that we will have IPv4 around for very long time and this proposal help to gives every newcomer a fair start. That's the main Idea of the last /8. Because of this I

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

>> do we know how many LIRs eligible under the current policy have not >> yet asked for a final /22? > So, 13950 /22s between Q4/2012 and today, hence i would say your > answer is around 2404 LIRs (16354-13950). i tend to agree with the suggestion that folk with ipv4 space already are not

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Carlos, >> > This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That >> will happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for new >> entrants in >> this community, by trying to extend the time period until the >> runout occurs. We cannot "measure" its

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Dear AP-WG, I Oppose this 2017-03 proposal, IPv6 has been around for decades, and "we" have failed to implement it in time. I see no point in rewarding laziness and yet trying to again give more time to seriously start to implement v6. The more time we are given, the more time it will take,

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

--snip--. We have to deal with reality - IPv6 adoption is slower than we expected. Even standardisation of IPv6 was quite slow in some details - we had to wait 18 years for RFC 8200... -True, there was probably not enough pressure, but giving yet more time will not speed up the integration

[address-policy-wg] R: 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

I don't see TOO any problem in reduction of initial (minimal) IPv4 allocation. So i support this idea TOO . -Messaggio originale- Da: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Per conto di Daniel Suchy Inviato: venerdì 22 settembre 2017 10:09 A:

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 05:50, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote: > >>> At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free >>> pool in RIPE's hands? >> >> There’s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. > > There is also: >

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 11:11, Daniel Suchy wrote: > > > > Even standardisation of IPv6 was quite slow in some details - we had to > wait 18 years for RFC 8200... But that rally wasn’t a major change in any way from RFC2460, modulo the few errata that had already been applied

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On 21/09/17 20:22, Randy Bush wrote: > once it was /19. welcome to life. I think the stakes are a little higher these days. -- Tom Hill Network Manager Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 12:11, n...@kwaoo.net wrote: > > Today at $work, there is nothing planned to get rid of IPv4. Why should > we ? Buying some is less expensive than working on hybrid solution. So what? How could a change in the current v4 address policy possibly change that behaviour? If

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 17:40 Jetten Raymond wrote: > Dear AP-WG, > > I Oppose this 2017-03 proposal, > > IPv6 has been around for decades, and "we" have failed to implement it in > time. I see no point in rewarding laziness and yet trying to again give > more time to

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 08:18, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > when v4 runout forces folk to put /28s in frnt of nats, the folk with > shiny shoes will have a little chat with senior leadership, and they'll > cough up the bucks to hold the routes. history repeats. Doesn’t the ARIN

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Anna, I saw some calculations that with the current policy it would be 4-5 years, to run completely out, last /8 and returned space. Now I don’t know if these calculations are correct, but even if they are, or not, then I would like to know how long it should last ? 10 years, 20 , 50? I

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Randy Bush wrote: Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go? and you believe that there will be zero desirable ipv4 destinations on the internet by then? sure does not look like it

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> Then they have to buy addresses in the market. I keep running into > people who claim "look, RIPE is not out of IPv4 addresses, the IPv4 > exhaustion is just a hype/FUD". people will say all sorts of stupid things; funny monkeys we are. this does not mean we should use technology to teach

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hello, /24 is de-facto standard accepted in routing tables these days and also /24 was used in large scale during PI assignments - so I don't see any problem in reduction of initial (minimal) IPv4 allocation. So i support this idea. But I would like to keep option for asking more than /24 (up to

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Arash Naderpour wrote: Hi Carlos,   Hi, This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That will happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for new entrants in this community, by trying to extend the time period until the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

I agree with Mikael. It all goes again and again. I don’t see a need to change the current policy. Especially not to reduce the assignment. There has to come a time for the IP4 to finish at RIR level before pressure builds up on Ip6 rollout for those who didn’t bother to date. I don’t believe

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 08:08, Randy Bush wrote: > > oppressing the proletariat did not work out too randy I’m not sure randiness was affected either way by the oppression of the proletariat. :-) Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Yes I agree with your proposal Regards, On 22/09/2017 10:21, Carlos Friaças wrote: > > Hi, > > <2017-03 co-author hat on> > > "Access" is not the aim of this policy proposal. > > Afaik, there was already a proposal which had some common points with > what is described below, and it didn't

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 08:58, n...@kwaoo.net wrote: > > Maybe the right path is to find some way to allocate those addresses to > real new entrants only Come up with a viable definition “new real entrant”. It’s not as easy as you seem to think it is. > Perhaps limitations like only one

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. see the section on abrogating our responsibilities for stewardship if ipv6 can not seel itself, all the pressure will do is make even more nats. we don't really want that. oppressing the proletariat did not work out too randy. well

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the > run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go? and you believe that there will be zero desirable ipv4 destinations on the internet by then? sure does not look like it as far as i can see. and if a new

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: Hi. Hi, I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. It helps to go to IPv6 and the problem of IPv4 is resolved automatically. I'm really not sure about that. It won't solve any new entrant's case. I'm working around IPv6 since

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi, <2017-03 co-author hat on> "Access" is not the aim of this policy proposal. Afaik, there was already a proposal which had some common points with what is described below, and it didn't get anywhere then. Regards, Carlos Friaças On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, n...@kwaoo.net wrote: Maybe the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

a bit of history for those with short term vision 1995, and large providers were running out of ram to hold the table. sprint was the closest to the edge and falling over; but others were not far behind and could smell the coffee. these were the days where we all intimately knew

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Carlos, > > This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That will > happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for new entrants > in this community, by trying to extend the time period until the runout > occurs. We cannot "measure" its benefits until the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Randy Bush wrote: people will say all sorts of stupid things; funny monkeys we are. this does not mean we should use technology to teach morality lessons. it has not worked out too well when tried. My point is that it's useless to prolong the agony. The more we do, the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Maybe the right path is to find some way to allocate those addresses to real new entrants only Perhaps limitations like only one allocation: - per LIR - per legal entity - per physical person - per "network", "activity" or whatever, & based on how you should have your own resources Anything that

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-03, "Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, > aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space", is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to reduce the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

>> as a friend wrote privately >> I would be interested to have a person who is 16 years old reply: >> "I am planning to open my own internet company in 4 years; can you >> please save some address space for me, 'til I finish high school?" >> But of course, there is no such person

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

it might be wise to avoid the eternal rat-hole of what will and will not increase ipv6 deployment. whether we like it or not, and whether we excoriate the folk who have not deployed or not, history has shown that we do not know. there are no more 32-bit integers. ipv6 is horrifyingly and

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Am 23.09.2017 um 02:24 schrieb Randy Bush: > the point here is simple. the ripe community has a responsibility to > the human community beyond the members of this list. But the RIPE Community cannot change the laws of physics or, for that matter, math. 2³² just wasn't enough numbers, deal with

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> I don't think that there is anyone whom would not be able to justify > /22. i think there are a vast number of entities which could justify a /16. so? there is this little problem. 2^32 is bounded. randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi all, I think it’s worth remembering that there is a time lag between policies being implemented and them having an effect on the market. Forgive me if I go into a bit of speculation, but where would we be if RIRs hadn’t implemented a “last /8” policy? The RIPE NCC’s coffers would almost

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hello, I don't think that there is anyone whom would not be able to justify /22. So I think that there should not be any need for justification. Simply because it would be one more meaningless paper, nothing more. Secondly, for me having more specific routes than /24 doesn't seems seem as the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Rob, The killer app : Most companies want to grow, especially those that serve shareholders, so imho expandability is the "app" . — these are the last bits of IPv4, here is your slice, it’s the same for all newcomers. We are in the end-game. Indeed, we have been there for a while, making

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On 22/09/17 14:16, Anna Wilson wrote: >> 1. It will not serve to improve IPv6 deployment > > My memory is that the original /8 policy was implemented, not to > encourage/discourage IPv6 adoption among existing IPv4 holders, but > because we recognised that new entrants joining the internet, even

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi, > On 22 Sep 2017, at 13:56, Anna Wilson wrote: > > Hi Ray, > >> On 22 Sep 2017, at 12:04, Jetten Raymond wrote: >> >> Hi Anna, >> >> I saw some calculations that with the current policy it would be 4-5 years, >> to run completely out,

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On 22/09/17 12:11, j...@k-net.pro wrote: > Today at $work, there is nothing planned to get rid of IPv4. Why should > we ? Buying some is less expensive than working on hybrid solution. That actually raises a good point: consider the enterprise that has enough IPv4 addresses for the next 30 years

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Tom, Thanks a lot for the thoughts. > It's primarily because of this that I'm against 2017-03: > > 1. It will not serve to improve IPv6 deployment My memory is that the original /8 policy was implemented, not to encourage/discourage IPv6 adoption among existing IPv4 holders, but because

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

This proposal will increase per-IP price Thus, it will promote alternatives (IPv6 !) Today at $work, there is nothing planned to get rid of IPv4. Why should we ? Buying some is less expensive than working on hybrid solution. On 22/09/2017 13:04, Jetten Raymond wrote: > I seriously think that the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Ray, > On 22 Sep 2017, at 12:04, Jetten Raymond wrote: > > Hi Anna, > > I saw some calculations that with the current policy it would be 4-5 years, > to run completely out, last /8 and returned space. > > Now I don’t know if these calculations are correct, but

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Tom Hill wrote: > The concern was that once the minimum size is a /24, as proposed, there > will be a need to permit /25 or /26 announcements to permit certain > traffic engineering strategies. Not that /22s will continued to be >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hello Aleksey, Please read : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board It is NOT the NCC who makes proposals, it’s the community who makes proposals (anyone interested), and the members together with the board and the budget of the NCC , who

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On 22/09/17 14:40, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > This just means that "certain traffic engineering strategies" will no > longer be viable for new entrants. In my little corner of the world, it is the flexibility of those "traffic engineering strategies" that finally push entrants into obtaining IP

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Tom, > On 22 Sep 2017, at 15:37, Tom Hill wrote: > > Because I don't see a way in which this policy will change anyone's > behaviour, or incentivise them differently over the current policy, I > don't believe it needs to be changed. If you would like, we can take >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hello Tim, On 2017-09-22 15:39:01 CET, Tim Chown wrote: > There’s an argument to track and follow policies implemented elsewhere, and > keep in step with those. LACNIC has adopted /24 it seems, and ARIN have a /10 > of IPv4 from which they can hand out /28 to /24. what are the current APNIC >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Tom, > On 22 Sep 2017, at 14:28, Tom Hill wrote: > > On 22/09/17 14:16, Anna Wilson wrote: >>> 1. It will not serve to improve IPv6 deployment >> >> My memory is that the original /8 policy was implemented, not to >> encourage/discourage IPv6 adoption among

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Anna, On 22/09/17 15:05, Anna Wilson wrote: > - that new entrants are most likely to support IPv6 (because very little > IPv4 can be got); > - that even fully IPv6-ed new entrants need some IPv4 to make IPv6 work; > - reaching IPv4 runout while this is still the case will hurt those new >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On 2017-09-22 14:58:51 CET, Tom Hill wrote: > On 22/09/17 12:11, jack _at_ k-net _dot_ pro wrote: >> Today at $work, there is nothing planned to get rid of IPv4. Why should >> we ? Buying some is less expensive than working on hybrid solution. > That actually raises a good point: consider the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > ... and ARIN are on a last /10 policy which sees applicants get a /28 to a > /24, so presumably those /28’s are routed at some level; that’s been in > place for some time, how is it working out? ... > This ARIN policy is

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Anna, all, On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 01:56:13PM +0100, Anna Wilson wrote: > It's not an unreasonable effect to hope for. But the current /8 policy is > already quite restrictive. I would be surprised if full runout would have a > much greater effect on existing IPv4 holders. And even if that

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 13:24, David Farmer wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > ... and ARIN are on a last /10 policy which sees applicants get a /28 to a > /24, so presumably those /28’s are routed at some level; that’s been in