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

Hi Carlos, sorry for the late reply I was out for work. I'll reply only to your question "> Fix IPv6 rate adoption by policy? " Carlos, this policy proposal aims to fix IPv4 rate depletion... so why don't use a policy for "rate adoption"? do you see any difference? Rest is personal opinion and

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

Hi. Agreed with Yury. I oppose this proposal too. Отправлено из AquaMail для Андроида http://www.aqua-mail.com NTX NOC 6 октября 2017 г. 8:23:00 ПП написал: Greetings! I Oppose this proposal. Minimum routing block is /24 and new LIR will be too difficult to build network in

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

That is the problem: _for free_. A new LIR who owns a single /22 (current value: €10k) pays as much as a LIR who owns a /12 (€10M for something that they paid about 0€). There are too many interest behind IPv4 deficiency. This is totally unfair. Simple as that. Il 06/10/2017 22:01,

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

Hi, all! I agree with Yury and oppose this proposal. It would be better to return unused allocations more than 24 months not from the last /8 pool. Many companies have /16, maybe more for free. 6 Окт 2017 г. 20:22 пользователь "NTX NOC" написал: Greetings! I Oppose this

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

Greetings! I Oppose this proposal. Minimum routing block is /24 and new LIR will be too difficult to build network in different locations. Most new LIR are small companies. For other half of the companies - they will have to route a lot of small block as 24, routing table will grow high. Nothing

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

Hi Marco, > On 22 Sep 2017, at 15:55, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > 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

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

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017, at 13:21, Carlos Friaças wrote: > > - forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already, > > and possibility to make things even worse (by creating new pretext for > > "longer than /24 in GRT"). > > Any prefix can be split into /24s and still remain globally

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

All, On 21/09/2017 13:43, 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 IPv4 allocations made by

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

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: Hi All, Hi, Thanks for your input! I oppose this proposal. My reasons, or at least most of them, have explained by other people during the last week: - maintaining a lack of incentive for IPv6 deployment ("still have some IPv4") The

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

Hi All, I oppose this proposal. My reasons, or at least most of them, have explained by other people during the last week: - maintaining a lack of incentive for IPv6 deployment ("still have some IPv4") - forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already, and possibility to

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

Hi George, All, On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, George Giannousopoulos wrote: Hello all, I see pros and cons for both accepting this proposal and rejecting it. One thing I'm curious about.. ARIN has run out of IPv4 space..  They had this... https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10

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

>I see pros and cons for both accepting this proposal and rejecting it. >One thing I'm curious about.. ARIN has run out of IPv4 space.. >Has this stopped any new startup from doing business or what? -- >George Hi George, It seems like a common belief among the proponents

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

Hello all, I see pros and cons for both accepting this proposal and rejecting it. One thing I'm curious about.. ARIN has run out of IPv4 space.. Has this stopped any new startup from doing business or what? -- George

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

On 26/09/2017 17:56, Erik Bais wrote: >> Now everyone will have to figure out if that's enough or not. :) > > That is clearly not enough... you are asking the obvious here Jan... ;-) Well, yes and no. We are talking about new entrants here, companies that are fresh new on the market and

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

> Now everyone will have to figure out if that's enough or not. :) That is clearly not enough... you are asking the obvious here Jan... ;-) Erik -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Namens Jan Zorz - Go6 Verzonden: dinsdag 26

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

Hi Everyone, So to conclude* the whole thing, although we have not technically run out, we practically already have, and as you probably know by now, I still see no point in making another policy on this and still oppose this proposal. A /22 is not even enough, let alone a /24 to yet connect

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

On 26/09/2017 10:26, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: > If you connect to your upstream with *their* IP addresses and not break > your /24 into smaller bits and connect your NAT64 or A+P PRR box > directly to that BGP router, use first usable address as a gateway, > second address as an interface address for

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

Hi all, I oppose this proposal. 1) If the actual routing table grows very quick, with all new lirs publishing /24 will make it over 1M routes in no-time, making mandatory to change "old" but very good routers that only can have 1M routes. Yes, I know there are a lot of /24 (370k) but if we

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

Rene, Much appreciated! The projected dates you mentioned are very useful! Best Regards, Carlos Friaças On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Rene Wilhelm wrote: Hi Carlos, All, On 9/23/17 1:02 AM, Carlos Friaças wrote: [...] do we know how many LIRs eligible under the current policy have not yet

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

On 24/09/2017 00:38, Sander Steffann wrote: > ...or change the /22 to /24 and keep giving newcomers a tiny bit of > addresses for a while longer (what is currently being proposed). Hey, A quick math what a /24 can give you if you use if for translation/transition purposes only (NAT64 or A+P like

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

Hi Carlos, All, On 9/23/17 1:02 AM, Carlos Friaças wrote: [...] do we know how many LIRs eligible under the current policy have not yet asked for a final /22? -Peter Thanks for that question! Looking at the alloclist from today, and filtering for RegIDs, i can count: 16354 (hmmm... #

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

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 09:24:55AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > "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?" How little space is effectively equal to no (non-aggregate) space at all? For some

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

Moin, am 24.09.2017 um 09:31 schrieb Daniel Suchy: > Hi, > > you still pay only *membership* fee. It's not a per-IP cost, even if it > can look like that. Old resource holders pays similar fee independently > from number of IP addresses they hold. Please don't get me started on that ... For the

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

Hi, am 24.09.2017 um 04:58 schrieb Randy Bush: > >> The only use case RIPE NCC should assign new IPv4 address space for is >> for documented and needed v6 transitions services > do not make rules you can not measure or enforce. it weakens the > credibility of the rest of the structure. It's

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

Dear all, pros and cons have been mentioned, I don't want to repeat things but I want to express opposition against this new policy proposal. Best regards, Fredy Künzler Init7 On 21.09.2017 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-03, "Reducing

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

Hi, > Op 24 sep. 2017, om 20:42 heeft Randy Bush het volgende > geschreven: > They are beyond help >>> >>> not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and >>> other NATs of many flavors. >> >> Sorry, I should have specified "from a IPv4 allocation

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

>>> They are beyond help >> >> not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and >> other NATs of many flavors. > > Sorry, I should have specified "from a IPv4 allocation policy point of > view" :) sorry. but having spent blood and tears on ipv6 deployment for over 20 years,

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

Hi, > Op 24 sep. 2017, om 04:55 heeft Randy Bush het volgende > geschreven: > >> They are beyond help > > not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and > other NATs of many flavors. Sorry, I should have specified "from a IPv4 allocation policy point of

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

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Arash Naderpour wrote: Hi Daniel, Hi, you still pay only *membership* fee. It's not a per-IP cost, even if it can look like that. Old resource holders pays similar fee independently from number of IP addresses they hold. RIPE NCC members can change this charging

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

How is this related to my point (assuming this was a reply to my message in the first place)? | Artyom Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: xima...@gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58 On Fri, Sep

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

Hi Daniel, >you still pay only *membership* fee. It's not a per-IP cost, even if it can >look like that. Old resource holders pays similar fee independently from >number of IP addresses they hold. RIPE NCC members can change this charging scheme, right? It was not like this always... > One

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

Hi Riccardo, All, Thanks for your input. Please see inline. On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Riccardo Gori wrote: Dear all, I started as an ISP early 2015 and I still consider myself a new entrant. That's not my definition for "new entrant". Strictly i consider a new entrant as an organization

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

Hi, On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nick Hilliard wrote: Willy MANGA wrote: So again, why do they rely on v4 (only) ? I really want to understand hurdles on european continent. I hope this time, it will be clearer :) same reason as in africa: for most organisations it's too much work with too little

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

I totally agree with Riccardo, I oppose to this policy as it could cause visibility/performance issues as lot of ISPs are filtering /24s. In my opinion, this problem will never be solved unless using IPv4 will become financially unattractive: I can't see why LIRs owning tons of /16s should

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

Dear all, I started as an ISP early 2015 and I still consider myself a new entrant. In the last 2 years I heard about a couple of time "no more IPv4 policies let's go over and think how to fix/help IPv6 rate adoption" but today we are still here complaining what's the best way to last longer

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

> P.S : This time I use my v6 smtp server even though at home I cannot > still use a v6 prefix ;) interesting to see the whole trail. Received: from psg.com ([2001:418:1::62]) by ran.psg.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86_2)

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

[ generally good analysis ] > The only use case RIPE NCC should assign new IPv4 address space for is > for documented and needed v6 transitions services do not make rules you can not measure or enforce. it weakens the credibility of the rest of the structure. randy

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

> In both scenarios relying on only IPv4 is insanity, it's a business decision, and probably has many factors behind it. you and i might think it unwise, but 'insanity' is a bit in the weeds. > They are beyond help not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and other NATs

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

Hi, am 23.09.2017 um 23:51 schrieb Willy MANGA: > Hi Nick, > > Le 23/09/2017 à 21:41, Nick Hilliard a écrit : >> Willy MANGA wrote: >>> being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today , >>> these people really need IPv4 addresses ? >> I'd be tempted to answer, except that you

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

Hi, > So again, why do they rely on v4 (only) ? I really want to understand > hurdles on european continent. I think the hurdles are roughly the same in all regions. Relying on only IPv4 is insanity, and those that do so deserve no sympathy. But as you have personally experienced IPv6 isn't

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

Willy MANGA wrote: > So again, why do they rely on v4 (only) ? I really want to understand > hurdles on european continent. > > I hope this time, it will be clearer :) same reason as in africa: for most organisations it's too much work with too little return. Many humans will only react after a

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

Hi Nick, Le 23/09/2017 à 21:41, Nick Hilliard a écrit : > Willy MANGA wrote: >> being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today , >> these people really need IPv4 addresses ? > > I'd be tempted to answer, except that you sent this email from an ipv4 > address. So, please

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

Willy MANGA wrote: > being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today , > these people really need IPv4 addresses ? I'd be tempted to answer, except that you sent this email from an ipv4 address. So, please deconfigure all IPv4 addresses from your computer, re-send the email,

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

Hi, Le 22/09/2017 à 08:47, address-policy-wg-requ...@ripe.net a écrit : > [...] > I'm working around IPv6 since 2001. Anna and Randy probably since before > that. We have deployed IPv6. It didn't enable us to completely get rid of > IPv4 within our networks. That also didn't solve any issue for

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

>> When do we distribute 240/4 among the RIRs as "really last /8s"? > > I made that question myself during an ICANN meeting (the only i > attended) 10 years ago. The answer was something about operating > systems' stacks. I wasn't fully convinced, but a large majority of > internet plumbers seems

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

Hi, On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: (...) Where does this 'responsibily' end? Don't know, but still feel we should try for the coming years. When will be "well, the IPv4 well dried out back in 2011; It didn't completely (even today), but the RIPE NCC service region

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)

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)

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)

>> 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, 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)

> 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

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 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

> 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] 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 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 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] 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 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] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

> 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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

> 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)

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)

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)

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)

> 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)

> 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)

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 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] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi, I don't see a need to do this change in the policy at the moment. consummation rate is the same as before. Even if there is a need, it could be 3x/24 or /23.why change it from /22 to /24? Arash On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > > On 21 Sep 2017,

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

> Over half of the table is made-up of /24s; that is not a coincidence. once it was /19. welcome to life. randy

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

> You're correct in saying that APWG does not deal with pricing, but > it's a bit jesuitical not to acknowledge that the practical impact of > this policy change will be a dramatic increase in RIR-allocated ipv4 > addresses. someone wrote to me saying the same thing. but they added that the

  1   2   >