This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Thu Mar 21 15:32:56 CET 2013
* McTim >> The key word here is *public*. The *public* resource is gone. > > not entirely, or have I missed that announcement?. Hi McTim, I don't count space covered by the "last /8" policy, if that's what you're alluding to here. This is because my proposal does not change it, and also because allocations made from this space are not sized according to the need principle. The "last /8" policy's "a single /22 per LIR, no more, no less" mechanic makes it impossible for a single LIR to allocate excessively from the space covered by the policy. This was not the case prior to the "last /8" policy - if it wasn't for the need principle, an LIR would have been able to repeatedly go to the NCC and receive space that it could in turn delegate further in an wasteful manner. With the "last /8" policy in effect, however, this safety mechanism is no longer necessary - because no matter how excessively an LIR makes delegations to its end users, it can only receive a single /22 from the space covered by the "last /8" policy, ever. > I think this proposal actually lengthens the lifetime of v4, in that > if an LIR makes a significant investment in v4 resources, they will be > more likely to seek the longest ROI possible, thus delaying their v6 > adoption. I don't understand this argument, could you explain? The amount of IPv4 addresses in existence would remain the same after 2013-03 passes, so it does not remove the depletion state we're in. > I also think that if adopted, this proposal would preclude an > inter-RIR transfer market in that the "needs test" is required in the > other regions, and that would mean that the RIPE region policies would > not be "compatible" as called for in the other regions transfer > policies. > > In other words, does 2013-03 preclude 2012-02 (if adopted) from being effective? Yes and no - it depends on the policy in effect in the other region space is being transferred to or from. I'm not intimately familiar with those, but I *believe* that ARIN would be incompatible, APNIC compatible, and that LACNIC and AfriNIC does not allow for inter-region transfers at all (so 2013-03 would not make any difference for those). Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]