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

[Riccardo Gori]

Goodmoring Remco,

I read that you don't want to comment more about 2015-05.
I'll respect you and I won't wait for an answer and we can leave 
everything for a quick chat in Copenhagen but I have to leave my comment 
on your analisys.


In your example you suppose that every LIR under a /20 will request an 
additional /22 (every 18 months after a /22 allocation has been 
reiceved) and standing on you will litterally "burn" out the space in 3 
years.


Let's see what has been done in the past:
In september 2012 there were about 9000 LIRs members and at the end of 
2013 the number grows up to 1 LIRs.
So in your view "last /8" would have distributed about 1 /22 on 
15130 availables from 185/8 at the end of 2013, leaving about 5000 /22 
in the pool.
In this vision you couldn't expect to leave to new entrants no more than 
5 - 6 thousand /22.
Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why 
such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time?


2015-05 requires to act for IPv6
Current policy required in the past to obtain an IPv6 allocation and do 
exacly nothing more

Nowadays the allocation policy requires just pay the fee and do nothing.

regards
Riccardo

Il 11/05/2016 21:53, Remco van Mook ha scritto:

On 11 May 2016, at 14:52 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
 wrote:

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote:


Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to
185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than
half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) -
effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in
the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their
last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more
than half, no?

No, because:
- it will not be dedicated to "further allocations"
- there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to
qualify
- with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last
/8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further
allocations".


OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers:

Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1)
Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1)

New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3)
Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2)

Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the 
proposed policy to get another allocation.
Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year.

Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool should last 
until early 2019.
At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the 
proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now empty 
as well.

So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere in 
early 2019.
The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185 pool' 
was gone by the time it was needed.

Now let's look at the current policy. As of today, a total of about 15,130 /22s 
are available.
Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the available pool should 
last until 2025 (although the uncertainties are quite high if you extrapolate 
that far out)

So on one hand, we have a proposal that will be game over for all in about 3 
years, or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for existing and 
future LIRs well into the next decade.

At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so they 
tell me.

The proposed policy has an impact (even the policy proposal itself says so 
(4)), and one that I strongly object to.

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

Sources:
1) 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
2) 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016/supporting-documents/ripe-ncc-annual-report-2015
3) https://labs.ripe.net/statistics
4) https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

Remco
(no hats)


--

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

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


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

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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 allowed to be used
> for the IPv6 trasition (DNS servers, NAT64 gateways, etc).  

Some people tell me that "last /8" in RIPE-land is supposed to serve the
same purpose, even if it's not written.
Plus, you *CAN* get more than 4 x /24 in ARIN-land (to date 2 x /24, but
the allocation rate is really low).

> People violating the ARIN rules shouldn't be used as an excuse for us to 
> change
> the rules in RIPE.
> 
> https://www.arin.net/announcements/2014/20140130.html
> 
> ARIN does not count them as part of the available ranges for
> allocation, so we should not assume they are part of the normal pool.

It's not the violation of ARIN rules, it's the fact that ARIN is *NOT*
v4-exhausted. They still have available space, even if they call it
otherwise.
And it's used (or at least supposed) to reward people with real IPv6
deployment.

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

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 21:53, Remco van Mook wrote:
> OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers:
> 
> Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1)
> Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1)

I'm OK with that.

> New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3)
> Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2)
> 
> Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under
> the proposed policy to get another allocation.
> Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year.

At the same time, 4472 LIRs do not have any IPv4 space. Is it possible
to know how many of them never requested it, 3.5 years after (or more
likely 2 years after all the restrictions have been lifted) ?
Do you really think all eligible LIRs will make the request within 6
months ?

> Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool
> should last until early 2019.

I see an average 12 months allocation rate of over 270 allocations/month
(and rising).
That leaves us (185/8 and recovered) 4 years 8 months (if allocation
rate remains steady - but it is increasing). 
For 185/8 only, that is (less than) 25.75 months, which is more like
mid-2018.
Continuing outside of 185/8, at the same rate, we get around
dec-2020/maybe jan-2021.
But that's missing the following:
 - allocations/month are on the rise, new members are on the rise
 - not much effect from 2015-01
 - no visible effect from suspending "multiple LIRs per member" (lower
 maximum, but steady high level).
 - things can change either way, rendering any estimation . very
 estimative

> At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the
> proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now
> empty as well.

Not over-night.

> So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere
> in early 2019.
> The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185
> pool' was gone by the time it was needed.

It will not be completely depleted, just reduced (and I can accept
"reduced by 50%").

> or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for
> existing and future LIRs well into the next decade.

This is the problem that is supposed to be fixed : the pain.
And if at the same time we can also do something effective for boosting
IPv6 deployment, the pain level may be even less when the v4 pool will
be really empty.

> At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so 
> they tell me.

So they told me too, I discovered that it's much more complicated.

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

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Peter Hessler]

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 "dry". There still is some
:space available within 23.128.0.0/10 under NRPM 4.10 (which is supposed
:to be pretty restrictive, but I saw networks that prove me otherwise).
:And they still allow "further allocations" from that block (provided the
:"restrictive" conditions are met for all blocks). And it's evey 6 months
:not every 18 months.
:
:So it seems that issuing IPv4 space is still possible even after you cry
:out loud everywhere that you have none left. Don't tell me we (small
:LIRs) have to do the same with only a /22 in stock :)
:
:--
:Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
:fr.ccs
:

The 23.128/10 block is ONLY for /24-/28 allocations.  These are not
intended as general purpose IP blocks, and are ONLY allowed to be used
for the IPv6 trasition (DNS servers, NAT64 gateways, etc).  People
violating the ARIN rules shouldn't be used as an excuse for us to change
the rules in RIPE.

https://www.arin.net/announcements/2014/20140130.html

ARIN does not count them as part of the available ranges for
allocation, so we should not assume they are part of the normal pool.


-- 
If you're going to do something tonight that you'll be sorry for
tomorrow morning, sleep late.
-- Henny Youngman

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

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote:

> Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to
> 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than
> half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) -
> effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in
> the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their
> last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more
> than half, no?

No, because:
 - it will not be dedicated to "further allocations"
 - there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to
 qualify
 - with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last
 /8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further
 allocations".

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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 (which is supposed
to be pretty restrictive, but I saw networks that prove me otherwise).
And they still allow "further allocations" from that block (provided the
"restrictive" conditions are met for all blocks). And it's evey 6 months
not every 18 months.

So it seems that issuing IPv4 space is still possible even after you cry
out loud everywhere that you have none left. Don't tell me we (small
LIRs) have to do the same with only a /22 in stock :)

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05

[Nick Hilliard]

Jim Reid wrote:
> Third, I think it’s unwise to have a firm rule on transfers. Though I
> understand why you’ve suggested this: it’s meant to stop LIRs selling
> off these extra addresses. For one thing, there can be valid reasons
> for transferring space that don’t involve selling IPv4 addresses - a
> business reorganisation for instance. Next, if an LIR wants extra
> /22s in order to sell the addresses, they’d still do that
> irrespective of what the transfer restrictions were in place.

fourth: this suggestion proposes to revert to a "needs" based allocation
policy.  This policy was removed a couple of years ago for good reasons
which are still valid now and it is not realistic to expect that the
clock is going to be turned back on this.

Nick

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05

[Jim Reid]

> On 11 May 2016, at 09:29, Enrico Diacci  wrote:
> 
> When an LIR can claim to have reached 4 (or 5) stars of RIPEness for IPv6
> may require an additional /22 (if you do not already have space equivalent
> to a /20) stating its reasons for the new allocation with a project and
> proving to have it completed within one year.
> 
> This new /22 will in no way be transferred before 3-5 years.
> 
> I tried to remove the term of 18 months: what do you think about?

Not a lot. But thanks for the suggestions and for trying to move things forward.

First off, I am adamantly opposed to any policy proposal which will speed up 
depletion of the NCC’s IPv4 pool. Though if someone can come up with a 
convincing case for wiping it out, I would reconsider. Until then, the current 
policy is the least worst option IMO and we should keep it.

Second, coupling any policy to RIPEness metrics is a very bad idea. Those 
metrics may change or even go away. [Who decides about that BTW.] They can be 
easily gamed too. Just do whatever needs to be done with IPv6 to get the extra 
IPv4 space and then take it down. Repeat.

Third, I think it’s unwise to have a firm rule on transfers. Though I 
understand why you’ve suggested this: it’s meant to stop LIRs selling off these 
extra addresses. For one thing, there can be valid reasons for transferring 
space that don’t involve selling IPv4 addresses - a business reorganisation for 
instance. Next, if an LIR wants extra /22s in order to sell the addresses, 
they’d still do that irrespective of what the transfer restrictions were in 
place.

[address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05

[Enrico Diacci]

I try to go beyond the 2015-05: 

When an LIR can claim to have reached 4 (or 5) stars of RIPEness for IPv6
may require an additional /22 (if you do not already have space equivalent
to a /20) stating its reasons for the new allocation with a project and
proving to have it completed within one year.

This new /22 will in no way be transferred before 3-5 years.

I tried to remove the term of 18 months: what do you think about?

Regards, Enrico Diacci.
it.tsnet


-Messaggio originale-
Da: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Per conto
di Jim Reid
Inviato: mercoledì 11 maggio 2016 10:05
A: Riccardo Gori
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG
Oggetto: [address-policy-wg] making progress with 2015-05


> On 11 May 2016, at 08:53, Riccardo Gori  wrote:
> 
> Sander noticed there are people here that are confirming that a change 
> is accepted and someone else noticed that 2015-05 can be re-written or 
> re-invented to meet better the tasks You as a chair should accept this 
> and should help the community to understand how to follow up with a 
> reasonable solution

The WG’s co-chairs have not expressed an opinion on this proposal. This is
to be expected since they have to make the consensus determination if
2015-05 reaches that point.

Others have pointed out flaws and raised substantial objections. These
issues have not been answered, let alone resolved.

Supporters of 2015-05 should accept this and should help the community to
understand how to follow up with a reasonable solution.

We’re waiting.


PS: Apologies for a relevant and meaningful Subject: header.




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Garry Glendown]

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 the ARIN way?  "Oops, we have reached exhaustion,
>> nothing left, good buy to new entrants"?
> We can't say ARIN was wrong because actually did a better job in IPv6
> growth.
Not sure if ARIN and it's (IMHO) failed IPv4 policy was the reason for
the better IPv6 growth, but any new entrant to the ISP market is paying
a hefty fee for it ... because even though the ARIN region may have a
higher IPv6 deployment, running and IPv6-only ISP business is out of the
question ... so companies have to go out and pay for an IPv4 block in
order to be able to do ANY business ... does that seem fair?

I reckon the only way to actually create a fair market would be to
either take away a percentage of assigned v4 addresses from ALL current
owners to redistribute to new entries to the market, or set a date for
disabling public v4 routing ... or maybe a third solution: Let all RIRs
take on the ARIN policy, do away with all remaining v4 addresses within
a couple days due to the incoming flood of requests, that way the price
for v4 transfers will skyrocket, making it necessary for existing v4
holders to finally implement v6, hopefully causing the v6 availability
to reach a tipping point quickly ...

I guess you will agree that neither of those solutions will be
implemented in the foreseeable future ... therefore, I agree with
sticking to the current v4 policies in an attempt to keep at least a
basic set of addresses available for new companies until the time that
public v4 has been deemed more or less irrelevant ... (hopefully, I'll
live to see the day ...)

-garry

[address-policy-wg] making progress with 2015-05

[Jim Reid]

> On 11 May 2016, at 08:53, Riccardo Gori  wrote:
> 
> Sander noticed there are people here that are confirming that a change is 
> accepted and someone else noticed that 2015-05 can be re-written or 
> re-invented to meet better the tasks
> You as a chair should accept this and should help the community to understand 
> how to follow up with a reasonable solution

The WG’s co-chairs have not expressed an opinion on this proposal. This is to 
be expected since they have to make the consensus determination if 2015-05 
reaches that point.

Others have pointed out flaws and raised substantial objections. These issues 
have not been answered, let alone resolved.

Supporters of 2015-05 should accept this and should help the community to 
understand how to follow up with a reasonable solution.

We’re waiting.


PS: Apologies for a relevant and meaningful Subject: header.

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Riccardo Gori]

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 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 the ARIN way?  "Oops, we have reached exhaustion,
nothing left, good buy to new entrants"?
We can't say ARIN was wrong because actually did a better job in IPv6 
growth.
I am not saying there's the best way. Ways are thousand and 2015-05 
doesn't pretend to be the best policy ever.
Current allocation criteria obviously created discontent and was even 
abused generating quick selling of 185/8 just for profit.
Sander noticed there are people here that are confirming that a change 
is accepted and someone else noticed that 2015-05 can be re-written or 
re-invented to meet better the tasks
You as a chair should accept this and should help the community to 
understand how to follow up with a reasonable solution




Gert Doering
 -- NetMaster


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)

[Remco van Mook]

Arash,



> On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash Naderpour  wrote:
> 
> Remco, <>
> 
> Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the 
> discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using 
> that.
> 

you can't have it both ways - entitle me to my opinion and at the same time 
saying I'm not allowed to voice it if you don't like it.
I stand by what I said, and I can't help being a bit surprised that it took you 
almost a month to respond to this part of my statement.

> 
> >>. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game 
> >>recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now.
> 
> We have the same situation with the “new-entrants” joined 2012 (before we 
> reached to last /8) and the ones joined 2 years after that.
> 
> >>The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a 
> >>remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle 
> >>about.
> 
> This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in 
> the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched.
> 

Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to 185/8, so 
your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than half gone by now 
(9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - effectively this means 
the proposal wants over half of what remains in the pool to get released to 
existing LIRs who've already received their last /22. This cuts the lifespan of 
the pool for new entrants by more than half, no?



Remco



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Roger Jørgensen]

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

>
> Il 11/05/2016 09:02, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:
>
> 
>
> minor correction, it is a state that was reached once IANA allocated the
> last /8 to all the RIR's, and it affect _all_ address space after that point.
>
>
>
>
> If I am not wrong standing on the information collected on this list the
> new allocation criteria was triggered when first allocation from 185/8 has
> been made.
>
> Please see Ingrid Wijte email 20/04/2016 to the list
> [...]
> The RIPE NCC started to allocate from 185/8 on 14 September 2012, when we
> could no longer satisfy a request for address space without touching 185/8.
> That moment triggered section 5.1 that states that RIPE NCC members can
> request a one time /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses).
> [...]
>
>
... too early in the morning, you're right. My point was that it affect all
IPv4 addresses after that point in time, not just 185.




-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

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

[Riccardo Gori]

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

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

you may find reading the actual last /8 policy informative.


Last /8 is not really get affected by this policy.
- Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space
   outside 185/8

this is misleading or just sadly misinformed

last /8 is not an address range, it is a state reached once the ncc had
only that address range and continues on irrespective of additions or
subtractions of space to the ncc's pool.

minor correction, it is a state that was reached once IANA allocated the
last /8 to all the RIR's, and it affect _all_ address space after that point.



If I am not wrong standing on the information collected on this list the 
new allocation criteria was triggered when first allocation from 185/8 
has been made.


Please see Ingrid Wijte email 20/04/2016 to the list
[...]
The RIPE NCC started to allocate from 185/8 on 14 September 2012, when 
we could no longer satisfy a request for address space without touching 
185/8. That moment triggered section 5.1 that states that RIPE NCC 
members can request a one time /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses).

[...]

My understanding is that the policy was already there but the community 
(we) at that date considered fair end up the good part of cake before 
triggering the new rule
Rumors says that there are a lot of suspicius allocation done just one 
or two weeks before triggering the "last /8"


regards
Riccardo

--

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

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


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

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Gert Doering]

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 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 the ARIN way?  "Oops, we have reached exhaustion,
nothing left, good buy to new entrants"?

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature