[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

On 21/03/2013 10:29, Tore Anderson wrote:
> 1) The «public resource» is gone, so there is no longer anything to
> protect. This happened when the RIPE NCC reached the «last /8» on the
> 14th of September last year. While the RIPE NCC strictly speaking still
> do have space left, it is exclusively governed by the «last /8 policy»,
> which 2013-03 does not modify.

> 2) While the RIPE NCC itself does not consider themselves to be in the
> business of "selling" IP addresses, the current IPv4 address policy
> *does* allow for paid LIR-to-LIR transfers of IPv4 allocations. That's
> the status quo, and 2013-03 does not change it one way or the other.

The public ressource is not "gone" : it was allocated or assigned, but
it's still there. And since the Ripe NCC has very few in reserve, this
means LIRs now have it all in their hands. I do not see the point that
would explain that the "fair" distribution by Ripe NCC should be
replaced by a "market-ruled" exchange by LIRs now, since LIRs are
supposed to conform to Ripe policies if you relax these policies in
excess then you allow LIRs to do whatever they want, whereas they could
(should) still be constrained by fair use and correct documentation
necessity.

It seems obvious to me that LIRs that have empty allocation should not
be allowed to sell it but should return it to Ripe NCC that could make
it equally available to LIRs that need in on the same fair allocation
logic than before. If conservation and documentation requirements are
abolished then this "garbage collection" will not occur.

And not making this garbage collection means a big waste.

This is why i am opposed to the first two principles of this proposal,
namely :
«
  - Remove "Conservation" as a stated goal of the policy.
  - Removes all active policy text referring to documentation, evaluation of need, and validation of actual usage for both assignments and allocations.
»

Maybe this will be possible when IPv6 will be really in place which for
the moment is far from being a reality, because IPv4 will not be vital
for anybody anymore.


> change this one way or the other. You are of course free to submit a
> separate policy proposal that would change this, but when it comes to
> 2013-03, this particular consideration seems to me to be out of scope.

Might come to this yes.

Best regards,
Sylvain Vallerot