[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

Hi,

Since I did not mention it clearly so far, please let me state
*i do not support 2013-3*.

Unfortunately the late amendments proposed here to reach a consensus
look like cosmetics to me, and do not address many of the objections
that were raised here.

  
On 05/08/2013 07:56, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> An "allocation pool" is the source from which resources are taken.
>> Once a resource is allocated, it is removed from the allocation pool.
>> As mentioned in 2050bis, "the pools from which these resources are
>> allocated are finite."

Aren't allocation transfers to be considered as part of this pool,
since they are (so far) supposed to be made of empty allocs, and
subject to the same conditions than direct allocations from the
Ripe NCC ?


> The last /8 pool has a very blunt definition of "operational need"; it
> equates it to 1024 addresses. The "giggle test" applied to this pool is
> essentially «do you need anything at all? yes/no». The current version
> of 2013-03 proposes to remove this giggle test (but not the
> one-size-fits-all definition of "operational need").

That "one-size-fits-all" is a myth because of allocation transfer
mechanism in my opinion. And also because of the PI to PA migration
projet, BTW.

But also 2013-3 does not apply to such a small space, since, as Tore
said, in another mail in this thread the "few" returns to the pool
since "depletion" amount to about 4,600 /22s (to be compared to the
16,000 remaining ones in the Ripe's pool).

Last /8 policy being set in order to deal with scarcity of the
public ressource I guess the importance of the ressource is a point
everyone admits (and no one knows how long it will remain vital).

However when I read through discussions here I feel like a "come on,
IPv4 is over, let's just stop the administrative burden", which
reminds me the last days at school before holidays when nobody was
minding about being still nor teaching or learning since it was
the end anyway...

Which makes me ask two questions

1. why should Ripe NCC consider *now* that these rare ressources need
  less attention and protection than previous ones, and not to be
  treated in respect to previous conservation principles, since these
  quite free and subject-to-be-returned addresses do not represent a
  ridiculous pool ?

Turned another way : when did reducing charges become more important
  than the conservation goal ?

2. why, if IPv4 free pools were completely depleted, would Ripe NCC
  be discharged of the responsability to supervise assignments for
  what still is a vital and public ressource (yes they are, despite
  AW made it much easier for everyone) ?

It might be a wrong impression really, and sorry for that but I feel
like if Ripe NCC would not really want to mind with IPv4 anymore, and
just wanted to turn away, being OK to just drop responsability to the
market, whatever happens. Hope I'm wrong.

Best regards,
Sylvain