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

Hello,

On 21 Sep 2013, at 00:03, "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

> Hi Filiz,
> 
> One question for clarification:
> 
>> And to better address the need based concerns objecting your proposal, I
>> think you could consider taking the "intent" you mentioned above one step
>> further and have it explained to the RIPE NCC.
>> 
>> Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording:
>> 
>> 3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must
>> confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.
>> 
>> replacing what you proposed:
>> 3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation
> 
> What is your motivation for adding the 'LIR must demonstrate its need for
> the IPv4 address space' part?
> 

- Demonstration brings accountability to any claim and makes the claim (of confirming the intent of making assignments) believable and supported. 
[This demonstration can be as simple as a couple of sentences describing the network and business of the new LIR and does not need to come in any specific form or shape.]

- Those who intend to lie to the RIPE NCC will be forced to be a bit more creative and work on their case harder than just clicking a combo box. Those who really have a need can explain this briefly very easily and pass the criteria without any hassle. So policy will still have some substance for some differentiation between bad and good practice. 

- RIPE NCC may be able to demonstrate and defend their position why they allocated space rightfully way better if they have to one day to some I* organisation, having received some demonstration from LIRs. The LIR may have chosen to lie and fake their demonstration but the RIR will be still have had asked the right questions to consider "need" as their justification of who gets the space. 
 
- Adding this may help getting agreement of those who currently object the proposal because of the complete removal of justification of need from the policy, as it is kept for allocations to new LIRs, while it is removed from assignments, which is the real bureaucracy on the LIR side. So this looks to me like a compromise between two conflicting interests/wishes. 

Filiz


> As the RIPE NCC can currently only allocate /22's the demonstrated need
> will have no impact on the allocation. Those that demonstrate a need of 1
> address will get the same /22 as those that demonstrate a need of a
> million addresses.
> 
> Your suggested text doesn't seem to have an impact on _what_ the NCC will
> allocate. It does have an impact on _when_ the NCC will allocate though.
> LIRs with existing allocations won't need the new /22 allocation until
> they used most of their existing ones. This only seems to affect the
> runout speed of the remaining /22's.
> 
> Looking at that: the RIPE NCC currently
> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph)
> has more then 14000 /22's left (not including quarantine and reserved).
> There are less than 9000 LIRs that can have allocations from before the
> runout. Some of them already have their /22. The remaining ones might be
> able to get their /22 sooner with the current policy text. More than 5000
> /22's will remain even if they do.
> 
> With my chair hat on: I have no opinion on your suggested change, I'm just
> interested in what effect you want to achieve with it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sander
> 
>