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

Cagri,
On the other hand, "enormous amount of man-hours" makes a lot of work
space and job offers for anyone. It  may help to fix social problems
caused by crisis and by mistakes of different goverments.

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Cagri Yucel <cagri.yucel at adaptplc.com> wrote:
> May I assume this was an April Fool's Day joke ?
>
> If it was not, we are talking about enormous amount of man-hours to renumber every single network in RIPE region. The same amount of time can be spent on IPv6 reconfiguration instead.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cagri Yucel
> Adapt
>
>
>
> -----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 13:36
> 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.
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com
>
> The information in this internet email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please contact Adapt Group, London, 020 3009 3300.
>
> Adapt, Adapt Managed Services and Centric Telecom are all trading names of operating companies wholly owned by Adapt Group Limited (Company No. 05275131) which is registered in England and Wales. Its registered office is 35 New Broad Street, London, EC2M 1NH.
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Gennady Abramov