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

Hello,

On 20 Sep 2013, at 18:46, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:

> * McTim
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>>> This exact point was brought up by a few other people as well as the NCC
>>> itself in the first review period, and in order to meet those concerns
>>> the proposal was amended so that it does not longer make it possible to
>>> simply pay the membership fee and receive an allocation from the RIR
>>> without "need".
>> 
>> I consider the check box yes/no "I will be making assignments.." a fig
>> leaf at best.
> 
> Perhaps it is, but for all practical purposes, it's the status quo: To
> get hold of a /22 with our current policy, you'll have to sign up as an
> LIR and pay the membership fee, and then be able to say with a straight
> face that you need it for making an assignment of one (1) IPv4 address
> (singular). Most of us carry around the hardware needed to truthfully
> justify such an assignment at all times.
> 
>> So the proposal retains "need", but is title "No need"?
> 
> The proposal is not about corner cases such as the "last /8" austerity
> pool and the NCC's distribution of it; it is about the LIRs and their
> day to day operations. This is where pretty much all the remaining IPv4
> activity is at today, and it is where all the "need bureaucracy" this
> proposal is aiming to remove at is still mandated to take place.
> 


I had read the two paragraphs above again and again, and I cannot see how they work hand in hand in support of the proposal:

So the proposal is to remove some heavy "bureaucracy" (because if it was not heavy, we would not need a change, right?) which at the same time is (according to the 2nd paragraph) as easy as basically "keeping a straight face while justifying the assignment of 1 single IP"? 

I cannot parse these two in one support argument for the proposal.

So what is the goal of this proposal really?

I went through the new Rationale of this version and here is what I have to say:

------
proposal says:

1. Reduced bureaucracy:
Under the proposed policy, End Users, sub-allocation holders, and LIRs will no longer be required to document their need for IPv4 addresses in order to receive PA assignments, sub-allocations, or (transferred) PA allocations.
-------

I agree it can be seen as bureaucracy to ask people to justify PA assignments and sub-allocations now.
However, I am not convinced that asking justifying 1 IP from a /22 as a new LIR at this very interesting times is a big deal.
And removing a long-standing principle like "need based" should require a better argument than reducing bureaucracy. This is what I think, I do not expect everyone to agree. 
But this was my main (almost the sole) objection in the 2nd version of this proposal too and so it remains in the 3rd version too. 
Accordingly, I cannot support removing need justification from "allocation" requesters. 

I am fine, I repeat I am fine, removing it from assignments and sub-allocations (consensus hint???)

----

proposal says:
2. Allows for long-term business planning.
Under the proposed policy, the need-based time period will be raised from the current one/two years (allocation/assignments) to essentially infinity.

-----

I do not see this as a supporting argument to the proposal itself. I think it is just irrelevant. 
No one has any idea what their network will be like in 100 years.
Anything that can be rational will be based in the next one/two years which the current text is reflecting already. 

------

proposal says:
3. Makes the policy easier to read and understand.

------

This is nothing to do with the content of the proposal. 
Obviously any adequate policy document (resulting out of this proposal or not) should be easy to read, I agree, still sticking to my main objection stated above. 

------

proposal says:

4. Removes conflict between "conservation" and "aggregation".

------

This is just wording. 
The proposal can obviously not remove the conflict between conservation and aggregation, if any network admin is there to feel it. 
But the proposal removes the text about these from the policy, yes, but it is not a Rationale to me. 

------

proposal says:
5/6. LIR Audits becomes less time-consuming and Reduction of RIPE NCC workload.

------

These are procedural NCC issues, I've already commented regarding reducing bureaucracy with the NCC, without doing a main curriery in the policy before. 
These two are not real address policy management related, they are "consequences" of the proposal, rather than positive or negative Rationales 

------
proposal says:
7. Elimination of incentive to "game the system".
 
...
By removing the need-based requirements, the playing field becomes level and fair for everyone involved, and will become impossible to get ahead by cheating.
------

I do not agree with the content of this statement. By removing the need-based requirements, the playing field becomes level for everyone, but this does not bring "fairness" at all. It only makes it less painful for those who dare or wishes to play unfair, in my opinion. I cannot support any proposal suggesting this in principle. 

-----

proposal says:
8. Makes IPv4 and IPv6 policies more similar in practise
….
By removing the need principle from the IPv4 policy, it will become more similar to the IPv6 policy in practise, in the sense that need justification will not be mandated for the vast majority of delegations.
-----
 
I am having trouble parsing this sentence, but the question stands; Why is this a good thing to stand as a Rationale, especially that currently IPv4 and IPv6 are separate pool of resources with separate set of problems?


I do hope I have my points clearly stated (this time around too). 

Finally I would like to say ideal policy should, in my opinion, reflect what is the good practice while it is a safe net for all the good practice, it is not so safe for the bad practice, so that such bad practice can be highlighted instead of getting lost and unnoticed among the good ones. In that sense, I believe "need-based" policies did a good job so far for such filtering and I support keeping them in our system as long as there is some pool that the RIPE NCC can allocate from to the new entrants of the system. 

Kind regards
Filiz




> Best regards,
> Tore Anderson
>