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

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Just because you asked nicely :)..
>

Thanks :)


>
> I am not going to go through a very detailed word smithing or referencing,
> sorry, in my case I do not believe this will be helpful.
>
> But I will try to put my point of view in a different way again, using
> some different words and then I will stop because I feel I am repeating
> myself and some of the members of this list may already feel overwhelmed
> about the discussion.
>
> Here it is my main point:
>
> "Justification for need" and "evaluation of justification for need" are
> two different things.
>
> First one,  "Justification for need", is perfectly a policy matter and I
> believe IPv4 policy should still mention this, as long as RIPE NCC
> continues allocating space to its members and the last /8 is totally
> exhausted. Say something along the lines, "LIRs requesting address space
> from the RIPE NCC should have a need for the requested space for a network
> of their own or their customer".
>
> So that we at least put a barrier in front of those who would just ask for
> an allocation to immediately turn it into an asset.
>

That barrier is a paper tiger, unfortunately.


> But those who really are in need are primarily highlighted by the policy.
>
> Current policy has the following text:
> "Members can receive an initial IPv4 allocation when they have
> demonstrated a need for IPv4 address space."
>
> Tore's proposal is removing this totally and I do not agree with it.
>
> The latter, "evaluation of justification for need" is totally an
> operational matter that is performed by the RIPE NCC.
> Neither the current policy nor Tore's proposal has any significant text on
> this but this is one of his arguments for his proposal.
>
> In my opinion, real solution to this procedural problem of evaluation is
> on procedural level, not on the policy level.
> RIPE NCC may be asked to change their evaluation tools/systems/mechanisms.
> This does not require to remove the entire "need" notion from the policy
> text.


So, in essence, what you state is that:

a) There is no need to change or remove the "need" statement in the policy.
b) The RIPE NCC should decide how "need" is determined as a matter of
procedure.

Given what appears to be the majority view here, the NCC may just as well
decide to interpret the community's view on "need" as something that does
not need to be documented in itself, other than placing a request for a
network block.

Altering this particular part of the policy document as Tore suggests will
change very little in practice and procedure.

The way I see it, if you want for this to be a barrier, you should propose
new wording in the relevant policy documents, which stresses that a need
should be present, that there should be a justification for it, and _what
justification_ is sufficient.


PS

I'm aware of organizations becoming LIRs because of a claimed need for IP
addresses for end users, just to ensure that they get IPv4 space they may
not _actually_ need – and that this happened just because of the current
policies. The "need" is fictional and/or hypothetical, and there is little
way for the RIPE NCC and the community to know whether this is the case or
not.

Speaking as someone working for someone who currently uses both IPv4 and
IPv6, the "need" requirement always seemed a bit out of place. If it is to
have a place, it needs a clear policy for that.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130725/e1a590f5/attachment.html>