Re: [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Martin,


Il 09/05/2016 14:07, Martin Huněk ha scritto:

Hello,

I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05.

In my opinion, this might even slow down depletion rate of 185/8. But it does
not cover all cases of cheating the system.

You all probably know better then me that if you want to get larger address
space, the easiest way (and probably the cheapest) is to make new LIR, pay for
2 years and then transfer all its resources to your main LIR and close the new
one.

The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little
bit, but still some space for cheating remains. I would like to see minor
change in policy, such like that LIR could not transfer IPv4 resources from
pool 185/8 to another LIR (or its sponsored organizations) so that receiving
LIR (and its sponsored organizations) would held more than /22 in 185/8 pool.
That way, it would not matter how many LIR you open, when you close LIR you
would not be able to transfer resources to any of your other LIRs (in RIR
region), so it would had to be returned to RIPE for new comers.
You are right but and this in this case we have to consider that RIPE 
NCC cannot deal with any kind of business process inside companies or 
natural persons
The only thing RIPE NCC can do is to check is the process is legitima 
and documented and it's very difficoult to discuss documents

provider by thir parties around the world with any kind of different law


Other than that, I agree with proposed policy change (2015-05). It might
reduce the need for cheating system by offering the official way to expand LIRs
pools, with motivation to start using IPv6 as well as limiting LIRs to
monetize their (in 4 and a half years) pools so they can reach /20.

Sincerely

Martin Hunek
Freenet Liberec, z.s.


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 
Cc: RIPE address policy WG 
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 
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" 
>
>> 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 ; 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  > 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] agreement

[Arash Naderpour]

Hi Sebastian,

I understand your point but please consider that setting up a new LIR does
not mean you are immediately eligible to receive additional /22.

- allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC
every 18 months.
- 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
- Allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC
every 18 months.

And you cannot transfer out your /22 for 2years,

So affection to the depletion rate looks less than setting up multi LIR to
receive immediately an /22 from 185/8 or encouraging small businesses in
need of small blocks to become LIR. 

Regards,

Arash Naderpour





 

-Original Message-
From: Sebastian Benoit [mailto:benoit-li...@fb12.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 5:07 AM
To: Arash Naderpour 
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG 
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi,

Arash Naderpour(arash_...@parsun.com) on 2016.05.09 23:25:56 +1000:
> 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 additional blocks. That also speed up the 
> depletion of last / 8. have you considered these when you made your
objection?
> 
> This policy is not increasing the demand for IPv4, It creates a 
> possibility for small LIRs to receive additional blocks (not from last 
> /8) based on some conditions, so no change in depletion rate from my point
of view.

On the other hand, there is also the possibility that 2015-05 will increase
the depletion rate, not only because more address space will be handed out,
but because it will make it more attractive (from a financial point of view)
to set up a new LIR when you get more than a /22 out of it. That is, it
might make the secondary market less attractive.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 proposal

[Jim Reid]

> On 9 May 2016, at 15:16, Arash Naderpour  wrote:
> 
> 
>> Tough. We’re out of IPv4. We’re all struggling due to a lack of IPv4 
>> resources. Everyone just has to make the best of it with whatever they have 
>> now. Anyone >planning to grow their network using IPv4 simply cannot base 
>> their plans on repeatedly going to >the NCC and asking for more. It’s that 
>> simple.
> 
> No, not everyone struggling due to lack of IPv4. There is a market and some 
> are selling their IPv4 to others. Are they struggling??

I don’t know. You’d need to ask the ones who are selling. I imagine some might 
be off-loading surplus IPv4 space because they’ve switched to IPv6 or are well 
down that path. FWIW the last time I looked, it was mostly legacy space which 
was changing hands. That’s not subject to RIR policies.

Not that this matters. Yes, of course some LIRs will have extra IPv4 addresses. 
That’s largely an accident of history. The fact they benefited from the more 
liberal RIR policies from N years ago is no reason to tear up the current 
policy. Amongst other things, the current policy aims to share the pain of IPv4 
run-out roughly equally between all LIRs. 

Supporters of this proposal appear want to avoid some of that pain for 
themselves (or delay it for a while) at the expense of others. That’s not fair, 
reasonable or balanced.

>> Let’s suppose 2015-05 is adopted. We quickly burn through the remaining IPv4 
>> pool because some LIRs continue to grow their IPv4 networks instead of 
>> coming to terms with the end of IPv4. 
> 
> That assumption is not necessary valid

Nonsense.

Current policy says every LIR gets exactly one /22. 2015-05 says an LIR can get 
more than that and keep on coming back for even more. This means the pool of 
IPv4 at the NCC will be depleted at a faster rate than it would under the 
current policy. 2015-05 even says this.

> Can you please define first what you mean from "Quickly burn"? and how this 
> policy can do that?

The usual dictionary definition of “quickly burn” should be clear enough. If 
not, replace “burn” with “squander”, “deplete”, “exhaust”, “fritter away”, “use 
up”, etc.

Current policy says every LIR gets exactly one /22. 2015-05 says an LIR can get 
more than that and keep on coming back for even more. This means the pool of 
IPv4 at the NCC will be depleted at a faster rate than it would under the 
current policy. 2015-05 even says this. How often do I need to repeat this?

Suppose a boat has a leak below the waterline. What happens if you put another 
hole in the hull? Will it sink earlier or later than if it had just one hole?

>>> We need a balance between resource conservation and fair treatment
> 
>> IMO the existing policy already achieves that. 2015-5, if adopted, does not.
> 
> Really? How 2015-05 make it unbalanced?

This has already been explained many times. The proposal actually says so 
itself. I quote: "Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free 
pool.”

A policy proposal which will speed up the depletion of the free pool BY DESIGN 
is deeply flawed and cannot hope to be either fair or balanced.

The balance in this proposal is about as “fair and balanced” as Fox News. 
2015-05 aims to encourage IPv4 exhaustion and is the very antithesis of 
resource conservation. Now let’s assume we agree that IPv4 exhaustion is a Good 
Thing. Who benefits from that policy? And are the benefits worth it? Well, the 
LIRs who’d gain from 2015-05 are the ones who can’t/won’t do anything about 
IPv4 exhaustion until it’s all gone. And even then, they’d only be able to keep 
going with those flawed models for a little longer than they would with the 
current policy.

IMO that’s not in the best interests of the community as a whole. It doesn’t 
result in an acceptable trade-off which justifies burning through the last 
dregs of IPv4.

2015-05 would allow some LIRs to keep on using IPv4 when they should have faced 
up to the reality of IPv4 exhaustion. That may well be to their short-term 
advantage. But it doesn’t change the outcome. It just brings forward the date 
when the NCC runs out of IPv4. That's
not fair for future entrants. It’s not fair to the LIRs who have already 
incurred the costs and expense of deploying NAT or IPv6 or whatever because 
“more IPv4” was no longer an option. They could have deferred or not had those 
hassles if there was a chance of getting more than a final /22.

It’s rather ironic that supporters of 2015-05 complain that they’re at a 
disadvantage to the LIRs who enjoyed the more liberal allocations of the past 
when they want to introduce a more liberal address allocation policy now which 
will disadvantage future entrants. Ho hum.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 proposal

[Arash Naderpour]

>Tough. We’re out of IPv4. We’re all struggling due to a lack of IPv4 
>resources. Everyone just has to make the best of it with whatever they have 
>now. Anyone >planning to grow their network using IPv4 simply cannot base 
>their plans on repeatedly going to >the NCC and asking for more. It’s that 
>simple.

No, not everyone struggling due to lack of IPv4. There is a market and some are 
selling their IPv4 to others. Are they struggling??


>Let’s suppose 2015-05 is adopted. We quickly burn through the remaining IPv4 
>pool because some LIRs continue to grow their IPv4 networks instead of coming 
>to terms with the end of IPv4. At that point, those LIRs will have a very 
>nasty shock. There would >literally be no IPv4 remaining at the NCC. So these 
>LIRs will then be forced to do something else: use NAT, deploy IPv6, use ALGs, 
>buy addresses on the secondary market, whatever. These LIRs could and should 
>be doing that "something else" now. They’re >going to *have* to do it 
>eventually and might as well start now if they’ve not already done that.

That assumption is not necessary valid,  when 2015-01 was accepted we had not 
that much change in depletion rate. Can you please define first what you mean 
from "Quickly burn"? and how this policy can do that?

>These LIRs surely know today that they cannot continue with a model that 
>assumes they can issue IPv4 addresses forever or go back to the NCC and get 
>more. So all these LIRs would have achieved with 2015-05 is buy themselves a 
>little extra time to persist >with a doomed model that they already know no 
>longer works. At that point the NCC would have no IPv4 left for any future 
>entrants who will need some IPv4 to connect to the legacy v4-only Internet.

Indeed, that’s why there are supports from a part of community.

>Burning through what’s left of IPv4 for the short-term benefit of LIRs who 
>can’t/won’t face up to the exhaustion of IPv4 seems wrong to me. Future 
>entrants would not thank us for frittering away those resources. They’ll need 
>some IPv4 too. We should think >about their needs too. Our IPv4 address 
>policies can’t ignore that in favour of some what appears to be 
>mistaken/misguided short-term benefit and self-interest.


>> We need a balance between resource conservation and fair treatment

>IMO the existing policy already achieves that. 2015-5, if adopted, does not.

Really? How 2015-05 make it unbalanced?

>> in addition to those already proposed my suggestions are:
>> 
>> -allocations of a /22 every 18 months only from IPv4 Addresses Available 
>> Outside 185/8 to small LIRs (if LIR own < /20 of total allocations)

>That’s discriminatory. It’s unfair on those LIRs who have a /20 or greater.

No comment!

>> -leave the current policy only for IPv4 Addresses Available in 185/8 to 
>> avoid the too fast depletion of resources

>No. 185/8 should not be treated as “special”. The current last /22 policy 
>applies to all IPv4 blocks at the NCC. That policy kicked in as soon as the 
>NCC made its first allocation from 185/8, the last /8 it got from IANA.

>> -the addresses acquired with this system should not be able to be 
>> transferred for a long period of time to avoid profit

It is not really required to treated it as "special", when it is required we 
can have a new policy to change the depletion rate. this is not the last policy 
we can discuss here :)


Cheers,

Arash

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 proposal

[Jim Reid]

> On 9 May 2016, at 11:37, Fabio Zannicolò - Voix s.r.l.  
> wrote:
> 
> Today small companies have competitiveness problems due to lack of IPv4 
> resources.

Tough. We’re out of IPv4. We’re all struggling due to a lack of IPv4 resources. 
Everyone just has to make the best of it with whatever they have now. Anyone 
planning to grow their network using IPv4 simply cannot base their plans on 
repeatedly going to the NCC and asking for more. It’s that simple.

Let’s suppose 2015-05 is adopted. We quickly burn through the remaining IPv4 
pool because some LIRs continue to grow their IPv4 networks instead of coming 
to terms with the end of IPv4. At that point, those LIRs will have a very nasty 
shock. There would literally be no IPv4 remaining at the NCC. So these LIRs 
will then be forced to do something else: use NAT, deploy IPv6, use ALGs, buy 
addresses on the secondary market, whatever. These LIRs could and should be 
doing that "something else" now. They’re going to *have* to do it eventually 
and might as well start now if they’ve not already done that.

These LIRs surely know today that they cannot continue with a model that 
assumes they can issue IPv4 addresses forever or go back to the NCC and get 
more. So all these LIRs would have achieved with 2015-05 is buy themselves a 
little extra time to persist with a doomed model that they already know no 
longer works. At that point the NCC would have no IPv4 left for any future 
entrants who will need some IPv4 to connect to the legacy v4-only Internet.

Burning through what’s left of IPv4 for the short-term benefit of LIRs who 
can’t/won’t face up to the exhaustion of IPv4 seems wrong to me. Future 
entrants would not thank us for frittering away those resources. They’ll need 
some IPv4 too. We should think about their needs too. Our IPv4 address policies 
can’t ignore that in favour of some what appears to be mistaken/misguided 
short-term benefit and self-interest.

The NCC will reach IPv4 exhaustion point of course. The current policy ensures 
this happens much later than it would than if 2015-05 was adopted. That is a 
Good Thing. And that is more than enough reason to reject 2015-05.

> I consider unfair the current treatment, the big companies have stocks of 
> IPv4 addresses.

The holders of those resources got them as a result of the prevailing 
allocation policies at that time. Apart from the implementation detail of the 
size of the allocation an LIR gets, this is exactly the same as how requests 
from those who apply today get IPv4 addresses according to the allocation 
policies which are in use now.

BTW I can’t travel back in time to buy the ticket which would have won 
yesterday’s lottery. That’s unfair too.

> We need a balance between resource conservation and fair treatment

IMO the existing policy already achieves that. 2015-5, if adopted, does not.

> in addition to those already proposed my suggestions are:
> 
> -allocations of a /22 every 18 months only from IPv4 Addresses Available 
> Outside 185/8 to small LIRs (if LIR own < /20 of total allocations)

That’s discriminatory. It’s unfair on those LIRs who have a /20 or greater.

> -leave the current policy only for IPv4 Addresses Available in 185/8 to avoid 
> the too fast depletion of resources

No. 185/8 should not be treated as “special”. The current last /22 policy 
applies to all IPv4 blocks at the NCC. That policy kicked in as soon as the NCC 
made its first allocation from 185/8, the last /8 it got from IANA.

> -the addresses acquired with this system should not be able to be transferred 
> for a long period of time to avoid profit

Define “long period of time” and “profit”.

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Arash Naderpour]

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 additional blocks. That also speed up the depletion of
last /8. have you considered these when you made your objection?

This policy is not increasing the demand for IPv4, It creates a possibility
for small LIRs to receive additional blocks (not from last /8) based on
some conditions, so no change in depletion rate from my point of view.

Regards,

Arash Naderpour




On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Peter Hessler  wrote:

> 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 you for expressing your support. However, at this point in the
> discussion we have seen enough support but not enough work solving the
> objections that have een raised. That is what is needed currently to work
> towards consensus. Without addressing those objections this policy proposal
> gets stuck.
> :Can you please summarize us the main objections about this 2015-05 policy
> so
> :that people can try to address a solution to those?
>
> 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 addresses,
> there is a secondary market.
>
> Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a
> middle ground can be met.  Based on my understanding of the other
> objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the
> objection side.
>
> I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any
> solution can be proposed.
>
> (note: my stance is based on forming a LIR simply to get any amount of
> announcable addresses.)
>
> --
> Quick!!  Act as if nothing has happened!
>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Daniel Stolpe]

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 with non-zero addresses to get more addresses,
there is a secondary market.


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".



Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a
middle ground can be met.  Based on my understanding of the other
objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the
objection side.


Well, to make a useful discussion possible I think it's important to 
look at the timescales. A policy that changes expected depletion from 
e.g. 100 years to 90 years might not be a problem, but other timescales 
will definitely be a problem.


I think the timescale I have heard that people would find acceptable is 
*at least* 5 to 10 years. If you look at the minutes of RIPE 70 
(https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-70) you'll see 
a statement from RIPE NCC when discussing this policy proposal that "the 
RIPE NCC?s IPv4 pool was expected to last for around five years.".



I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any
solution can be proposed.


The stated expected timescale already seems to be around the bare 
minimum lifetime that is accepted, and much less than what many people 
would like. I therefore have to agree that any proposal that shortens 
that lifetime even further will very probably not get consensus.


Someone would need to come up with a radical new idea to get out of the 
current deadlock. Which is why I urge all new participants in this 
discussion to read the mailing list archives so they can get the full 
current picture before they propose a solution.


Cheers,
Sander



Very well written Sander. I Completely agree with you.

Cheers,
Daniel

_
Daniel Stolpe   Tel:  08 - 688 11 81   
sto...@resilans.se
Resilans AB Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63
http://www.resilans.se/
Box 45 094
556741-1193
104 30 Stockholm

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Sander Steffann]

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 addresses,
> there is a secondary market.

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".

> Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a
> middle ground can be met.  Based on my understanding of the other
> objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the
> objection side.

Well, to make a useful discussion possible I think it's important to look at 
the timescales. A policy that changes expected depletion from e.g. 100 years to 
90 years might not be a problem, but other timescales will definitely be a 
problem.

I think the timescale I have heard that people would find acceptable is *at 
least* 5 to 10 years. If you look at the minutes of RIPE 70 
(https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-70) you'll see a 
statement from RIPE NCC when discussing this policy proposal that "the RIPE 
NCC’s IPv4 pool was expected to last for around five years.".

> I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any
> solution can be proposed.

The stated expected timescale already seems to be around the bare minimum 
lifetime that is accepted, and much less than what many people would like. I 
therefore have to agree that any proposal that shortens that lifetime even 
further will very probably not get consensus.

Someone would need to come up with a radical new idea to get out of the current 
deadlock. Which is why I urge all new participants in this discussion to read 
the mailing list archives so they can get the full current picture before they 
propose a solution.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Peter Hessler]

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 you for expressing your support. However, at this point in the 
discussion we have seen enough support but not enough work solving the 
objections that have een raised. That is what is needed currently to work 
towards consensus. Without addressing those objections this policy proposal 
gets stuck.
:Can you please summarize us the main objections about this 2015-05 policy so
:that people can try to address a solution to those?

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 addresses,
there is a secondary market.

Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a
middle ground can be met.  Based on my understanding of the other
objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the
objection side.

I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any
solution can be proposed.

(note: my stance is based on forming a LIR simply to get any amount of
announcable addresses.)

-- 
Quick!!  Act as if nothing has happened!

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Riccardo Gori]

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 seen enough support but not enough work solving the objections that 
have een raised. That is what is needed currently to work towards consensus. 
Without addressing those objections this policy proposal gets stuck.
Can you please summarize us the main objections about this 2015-05 
policy so that people can try to address a solution to those?



RegID: ir.shnt

You don't need to state your RegID in this working group. This working group is 
open to all interested parties, not just RIPE LIRs. Discussions are always 
between people, not organisations.

Cheers,
Sander


kind 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)

[address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

[Martin Huněk]

Hello,

I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05.

In my opinion, this might even slow down depletion rate of 185/8. But it does 
not cover all cases of cheating the system.

You all probably know better then me that if you want to get larger address 
space, the easiest way (and probably the cheapest) is to make new LIR, pay for 
2 years and then transfer all its resources to your main LIR and close the new 
one.

The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little 
bit, but still some space for cheating remains. I would like to see minor 
change in policy, such like that LIR could not transfer IPv4 resources from 
pool 185/8 to another LIR (or its sponsored organizations) so that receiving 
LIR (and its sponsored organizations) would held more than /22 in 185/8 pool. 
That way, it would not matter how many LIR you open, when you close LIR you 
would not be able to transfer resources to any of your other LIRs (in RIR 
region), so it would had to be returned to RIPE for new comers.

Other than that, I agree with proposed policy change (2015-05). It might 
reduce the need for cheating system by offering the official way to expand LIRs 
pools, with motivation to start using IPv6 as well as limiting LIRs to 
monetize their (in 4 and a half years) pools so they can reach /20.

Sincerely

Martin Hunek
Freenet Liberec, z.s.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Sander Steffann]

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 objections that 
have een raised. That is what is needed currently to work towards consensus. 
Without addressing those objections this policy proposal gets stuck.

> RegID: ir.shnt

You don't need to state your RegID in this working group. This working group is 
open to all interested parties, not just RIPE LIRs. Discussions are always 
between people, not organisations.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

[address-policy-wg] agreement

[Ehsan Behbahani]

-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 
[https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05]


RegID: ir.shnt

best regards.

Ehsan behbahani