[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)

Nick, all,

I'm totally against this new proposal 2010-02.

I just checked the release notes of the latest software version of our Firewall vendor.
There is no support for subnets of 640 addresses today.
Even worse, there is no sign of it in the latest roadmap we received.

Another problem I see is that very few IP address management databases support a /22,678 as subnet mask.

Marc


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
> Sent: 01 April 2010 14:36
> To: Address Policy Working Group
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and
> Re-assign Fairly)
>
> Number:                       2010-01
> Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly
> Author:               Nick Hilliard, INEX
> Proposal Version:     1.0
> Submission Date:      1 April 2010
> Current Phase:                Discussion - Open for Discussion
> Phase ends/ended:     1 April 2010
> Latest Status:                Initial Community Discussion
> Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy
> Proposal Type:                New
> Policy Term:          Indefinite
> Policy Documents to be Affected:
>     * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE
> NCC
> Service Region (ripe-492)
>
>
> Summary of Proposal:
>
> This proposal revokes all previous IPv4 LIR allocations and direct /
> LIR
> assignments, returning all ERX and RIPE NCC-assigned IPv4 address space
> back to the RIPE NCC, where it can be re-assigned fairly, using new
> policies and guidelines.
>
> The RIPE NCC has been acting as RIR in the European / Middle-East
> geographical areas since 1989.  Due to egregiously lenient policies and
> gross end-user address wastage, in combination with a more recent
> tendency
> to horde IPv4 addresses in anticipation of a future shortage, recent
> research has suggested that approximately 97% of IPv4 address assigned
> and
> allocated through the RIPE NCC aren't actually used at all, and never
> were.
>  Furthermore, this research suggests that if all this address space
> were
> returned to the RIR for re-assignment, this would create enough slack
> space
> in the IPv4 address pool to service all future requests in the RIPE NCC
> service region for approximately 100-150 years, based on current actual
> run-rate, rather than the current fantasy figures published by the RIPE
> NCC.
>
> Also included as part of this policy is a future restriction to limit
> all
> future direct assignments to 640 IPv4 address, because that should be
> enough for anyone.
>
> Policy Text:
> a. Old text
>
> Remove sections 5, 6 and 7 in RIPE 492.
>
> b. New policy text
>
> Insert new section 5 in RIPE 492:
>
> --
> 5.0 Policies and Guidelines for Allocations and Assignments
>
> An allocation is a block of IPv4 addresses from which assignments are
> taken.
>
> All allocations and assignments made prior to April 1, 2010 are hereby
> revoked, cancelled, and made null and void.  LOL!!11!!!1!
>
> The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that
> that should be more than enough for anyone.  PI assignments requests
> will
> be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are.
> --
>
> a. Arguments supporting the proposal
>
> Every LIR and PI holder is hoarding address space like there's no
> tomorrow.
>  By forcing a reboot of the entire registry system, every holder will
> be
> equally wrong-footed, and will realise that there's no need to hoarde
> address space after all.
>
> This policy will have the side effect of ensuring that this insane rush
> to
> IPv6 is entirely unnecessary, proving beyond all doubt that the ITU
> seriously has no clue when it comes to Internet resource assignment.
>
> b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal
>
> It is likely that nay-sayers and other party-poopers will come out of
> the
> wood-work to bleat about how this proposal is unfair.  The author
> advises
> that they get a life and stop hoarding numbers.  After all, they're
> only
> numbers.  And if they really need more, they can contact me directly
> (see
> contact details above).
>
> Some companies will attempt to claim that they have more than 640
> customers.  Clearly, this can't be true because any company with more
> than
> 640 customers would be making a profit, which everyone knows to be a
> ridiculous claim.


**** DISCLAIMER ****
http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer