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] 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] 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] 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

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] 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

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Sander, Hi Peter,

Il 09/05/2016 14:50, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Peter,


My main objection to this proposal is simple:  It depletes the available
pool for _new_ participants faster.  I strongly believe any new actor
should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses 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".
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.



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


This policy is a real way to slow down a little bit the allocation rate 
for the reasons above stated.
In total there are about 13700 LIRs about 9.05 millions addresses of 
185/8 have been allocated since 2012


Otherwise is possible to change completly the way the unused space is 
handled. Why don't place a pay per use?
I think we would see a lot of transfert take place and allocation rate 
will magically slow down



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

[Riccardo Gori]

Goodmorning Enrico,

thank you for your opinion

Il 10/05/2016 09:18, Enrico Diacci ha scritto:


Hi Riccardo,

This policy is so good in 2 main things:
- address the problem of customers make the customers giving new 
entrants a little bit more space to handle their grow and customer 
acquisition
- incentive the use IPv6. Again this is the ONLY policy that advice 
LIRs to use IPv6 actually


mainly the second one in my opinion is the important thing: if a LIR 
wants take advantage of this proposal it MUST demonstrate having 
deployed IPv6 in its network.


We could also make stronger this idea of really using IPv6 requesting 
4 (or 5 now) stars of RIPEness.


So this may be considered such a prize to really do effort in 
implementing IPv6 (and in Italy we know how we must facilitate it, 
with less than 0,5% of adoption).



I think higher the prerequisites wouldn't be a problem
The problem is that he is against the proposal is very interested in 
saving IPv4 space instead of start thinking that incentiving IPv6 could 
be a solution to slow down the allocation rate.
I think for most people is a matter of money: no more IPv4 no value in 
it. With IPv6 deployed and available no problem with IPv4 exhaustion.


Regards,

Enrico Diacci.

it.tsnet



kind regards
Riccardo Gori
--

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

[Tore Anderson]

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

> - Second, right now the NCC is just handing out /22 to whoever can
> pay for them (with only a small extra administrative restriction
> during the last 6 months). For me this is plain "selling IP
> addresses" (concept that the NCC avoided like hell int the past), and
> it is also defeating the "keep space for later entrants" purpose. No
> need check (as in "do you really need that space" *), no requirement
> to deploy IPv6 of any kind, just a simple "pay to have it".

Time for a history lesson...

It has been true for a very long time, certainly for much longer than
the last /8 policy has been around, that new members (LIRs) have been
pretty much guaranteed to receive an minimum-sized IPv4 allocation.

The requester needed to be a member with assignments to make. That's
pretty much all there was to it. The logic: If a new LIR is about to
make >0 IPv4 assigments (sized >0 in total), then that LIR obviously
is in need of an IPv4 allocation sized >0, thus automatically
qualifying for a /n. (/n is the minimum allocation size at the time of
the request. Prior to the activation of the «last /8» policy it was
a /21, while today it is a /22.)

If you read ripe-649 closely you'll see that the above holds true
today: New LIRs with assignments to make get a minimum-sized IPv4
allocation.

So this part of the policy hasn't really changed. It might seem like
it, but in reality it is because two avenues that previously allowed
end users to obtain IPv4 space in a far easier way than "become an LIR"
is or ever was have been closed - thus making the "become an LIR" avenue
increase in popularity:

1) Receiving PA assignments from an LIR/ISP. Before IPv4 was running
out, there was no incentive for an LIR/ISP to not give an end user all
the space he needed; the LIR/ISP could easily cover such "loss" with
additional allocations from the NCC. That's no longer the case, so
LIR/ISPs that aren't completely out of free IPv4 space have every
reason to be very conservative about making PA assigments, e.g., by
reserving them for the highest-value customers.

2) Receiving PI assignments via a sponsoring LIR/ISP or directly from
the NCC. The «last /8» policy killed off IPv4 PI, except for IXP and
temporary use.

In summary: if one starts out by equating "accepting new paying members"
with "selling IP addresses", then the RIPE NCC has been seeling IP
addresses since its inception. It's not a new thing at all. (It's not
limited to IPv4 either, by the way: Any new member joining today gets
to pick up a "complimentary" IPv6 /29 welcome gift.)

What is new, though, is that we're essentially out of IPv4. This has
caused the community to sacrifice the previous convenient and cheap
avenues of obtaining voluminous IPv4 delegations for the sake of
conservation. Even though this obviously cannot stave off full and utter
depletion indefinitely, I believe it is the right thing to do for the
sake of new entrants joining the community in the years to come. I do
not support 2015-05 because to me it represents a reversal of this
course.

Tore

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Michael Oghia]

Hi all,

Thank you for clarifying Niall. I suggest then that the original proposer
weigh into this process with his/her suggestions on going forward and
potentially incorporating this recommendation to split the proposal into
two parts.

Best,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey
Journalist & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter  *|* LinkedIn


On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Niall O'Reilly 
wrote:

> On 10 May 2016, at 14:27, Michael Oghia wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have been following the discussion and I strongly support Jan's
> > suggestion, especially since the bulk of the contention seems to be with
> > what Jan describes as Part B. Does anyone know if it is possible to split
> > the proposal into two parts?
>
>   Yes.
>
>   If it were my proposal, here's how I would go about it.
>
>   Withdraw the current proposal.
>   The proposer can always do this during the process.
>
>   Introduce two new proposals (2016-somenumber and 2016-someothernumber)
>   respectively containing the "Part A" and "Part B" material from the
>   current proposal.
>
>   There may be other ways of doing it, but this seems simple and effective.
>
>   Best regards,
>
>   Niall O'Reilly
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Niall O'Reilly]

On 10 May 2016, at 14:27, Michael Oghia wrote:

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

  Yes.

  If it were my proposal, here's how I would go about it.

  Withdraw the current proposal.
  The proposer can always do this during the process.

  Introduce two new proposals (2016-somenumber and 2016-someothernumber)
  respectively containing the "Part A" and "Part B" material from the
  current proposal.

  There may be other ways of doing it, but this seems simple and effective.

  Best regards,

  Niall O'Reilly

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 08:15, Denis Fondras wrote:

> Why wouldn't a LIR get some space on the secondary market to provide to
> its customers ?

Because: 
 - for a small LIR it's still too expensive (usual quote is 11-13 USD/IP
 for /22 to /24)
 - there is some risk of "bad quality IPs" (blacklists, bad reputation,
 bad and slow-to-update geoloc data)
 - missing business procedures/confidence (issue of using escrow account
 does not help)

> Some are taking advantages of this situation (open multiple LIR) to get IPv4
> space. I don't see how 2015-05 would stop that even if you allow new LIR to 
> get
> more than a /22. All I can see it more faster depletion (honest LIR getting
> more + dishonest LIR getting more)

It will not stop dishonest ones. May checking the actual need may slow
them down a little bit, but that is not sure either.
However, the honest ones will not have to use the same practices that
they already consider "cheating".

> I hear your arguments but I don't think 2015-05 is the right answer for the
> community.

If you have any ideas, you're welcome to share.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Michael Oghia]

Hi all,

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

Best,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey
Journalist & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter  *|* LinkedIn


On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Jan Ingvoldstad  wrote:

> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
> ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 14:50, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> > Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years
>> > with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22".
>>
>> I find the situation a little more complex than that:
>>  - First, the "in a few years with no IPv4" is not so far away. Even
>>  with current policy, it is for 2020, with a lot of chance 2021. With
>>  the proposal, worst case scenario is that we MAY loose up to 18 months
>>  (more likely something in the 6-12 months range ). Which is not
>>  completely sure (as Martin Huněk noted a few messages ago).
>>  - Second, right now the NCC is just handing out /22 to whoever can pay
>>  for them (with only a small extra administrative restriction during the
>>  last 6 months). For me this is plain "selling IP addresses" (concept
>>  that the NCC avoided like hell int the past), and it is also defeating
>>  the "keep space for later entrants" purpose. No need check (as in "do
>>  you really need that space" *), no requirement to deploy IPv6 of any
>>  kind, just a simple "pay to have it".
>>
>
> This could be solved without introducing yet another way to deplete the
> remaining pool.
>
> The problem with 2015-05, is its similarity to how certain acts of
> Congress in the US come to pass:
>
> You bundle what you want with something else, to sweeten the deal.
>
> So here is how you can fix the deadlock:
>
> Unbundle. Split the proposal in two parts.
>
> Part A: Additional requirements for IPv4 allocations
>
> Part B: Additional periodical IPv4 allocations for existing LIRs
>
> This would, for instance, make it easy for me to say "yes" to part A, and
> "no" to part B, instead of "no" to the entire package.
> --
> Jan
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 14:50, Sander Steffann wrote:
> > Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years
> > with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22".
>
> I find the situation a little more complex than that:
>  - First, the "in a few years with no IPv4" is not so far away. Even
>  with current policy, it is for 2020, with a lot of chance 2021. With
>  the proposal, worst case scenario is that we MAY loose up to 18 months
>  (more likely something in the 6-12 months range ). Which is not
>  completely sure (as Martin Huněk noted a few messages ago).
>  - Second, right now the NCC is just handing out /22 to whoever can pay
>  for them (with only a small extra administrative restriction during the
>  last 6 months). For me this is plain "selling IP addresses" (concept
>  that the NCC avoided like hell int the past), and it is also defeating
>  the "keep space for later entrants" purpose. No need check (as in "do
>  you really need that space" *), no requirement to deploy IPv6 of any
>  kind, just a simple "pay to have it".
>

This could be solved without introducing yet another way to deplete the
remaining pool.

The problem with 2015-05, is its similarity to how certain acts of Congress
in the US come to pass:

You bundle what you want with something else, to sweeten the deal.

So here is how you can fix the deadlock:

Unbundle. Split the proposal in two parts.

Part A: Additional requirements for IPv4 allocations

Part B: Additional periodical IPv4 allocations for existing LIRs

This would, for instance, make it easy for me to say "yes" to part A, and
"no" to part B, instead of "no" to the entire package.
-- 
Jan

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

Hi,

On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 14:50, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years
> with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22".

I find the situation a little more complex than that:
 - First, the "in a few years with no IPv4" is not so far away. Even
 with current policy, it is for 2020, with a lot of chance 2021. With
 the proposal, worst case scenario is that we MAY loose up to 18 months
 (more likely something in the 6-12 months range ). Which is not
 completely sure (as Martin Huněk noted a few messages ago).
 - Second, right now the NCC is just handing out /22 to whoever can pay
 for them (with only a small extra administrative restriction during the
 last 6 months). For me this is plain "selling IP addresses" (concept
 that the NCC avoided like hell int the past), and it is also defeating
 the "keep space for later entrants" purpose. No need check (as in "do
 you really need that space" *), no requirement to deploy IPv6 of any
 kind, just a simple "pay to have it".

> 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.

Given the time we have left (very unlikely to have 60 moths left)
anything starts being problematic.

> 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.".

It all depends on when we start counting. If we start counting from
09/2012, we will meet the 5 years lifetime even with the current
proposal. If we start now (10/05/2016), we will most probably NOT reach
5 years.
We will NOT get 10 years of "last /8". 
And we should probably stop thinking "X years starting from now on".
Time passes.
In the meantime, people do "whatever seems appropriate" to get more v4
space. And unfortunately more and more people find there is no other
solution than cheating in some way or another. The policy was supposed
to calm down this.

> 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

Does anybody feel that a more complex policy is acceptable ? Does making
the policy more complex in order to get longer timespan for the free
pool (which does not exclude extra allocations if conditions are met) is
somthing that may get consensus ?

(*) Some time ago, a lot of "new players" would have started by being
single-homed and having one (or more) "ASSIGNED PA" block(s) from their
upstream. Then they were taking an ASN, and then became LIRs. Those
going LIR from day one were not exactly commonplace.
Today, even for those that are ok with being single-homed with an
"ASSIGNED PA" from their upstream, if the size of the requested block
goes beyond a certain size (commonly /24, occasionally down to /26),
they are recommended (or even pushed) to become a LIR and get their /22.
There are others that just "can afford" to spend some money to become
LIR and get some space, even if it's not really used, just in case
things go wrong in the future.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

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

Hi,

With a few drawbacks - more de-aggregation, (much) more complex policy -
that could be achieved (without speeding up depletion). However, a lot
of people let me understand that complexity is a no-go.
That could even have been achieved with 2012-04 (rejected back in 2013).

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Denis Fondras]

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

Why wouldn't a LIR get some space on the secondary market to provide to its
customers ?

> And you consider it fair when you cannot get more than /22 when some players
> have /19 or more?

For some definition of "fair".
I came to the game later when the pool was empty, I know it and I understand it.
So, I consider "fair" I was able to get a small part of IPv4 that helped me
kickstart the business.

> At the moment many new LIRs are just joining the RIPE NCC to get small blocks,
> that is happening.
>

Some are taking advantages of this situation (open multiple LIR) to get IPv4
space. I don't see how 2015-05 would stop that even if you allow new LIR to get
more than a /22. All I can see it more faster depletion (honest LIR getting
more + dishonest LIR getting more)

I hear your arguments but I don't think 2015-05 is the right answer for the
community.

Denis

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 <arash_...@parsun.com>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi,

Arash Naderpour(arash_...@parsun.com) on 2016.05.09 23:25:56 +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] 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)

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