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

On 23/09/2013 16:23, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> And LIRs could be tempted by selling these ressources without a need
>> being properly justifying it.
>
> (I am assuming we are talking about an LIR's assignment to its End
> User's here?)

You are right, this is what this discussion is all about : documenting
the needs is about assignments, which occurs between LIR and End Users.
This is where conservation and needs-based policy make sens.


> As above, why would you expect an End User to buy an assignment (in
> itself, this is completely OK by today's policy BTW) if he has no need
> for it?

Because it is a good placement to survive, when you can get the
ressource and others can't, they die and you survive. Being a CEO
the survival of my company and its ability to have necessary
ressources during scarcity periods is a main concern. Fortunately
enough my business is not using much IP ressource. Several of my
clients do however, and some would be glad to get a /22 to be
more "in confidence", while they can hardly justify a /24.


> It is already the case *today* that big and wealthy ISPs or corporations
> with lots of money to spend has a huge advantage over small and
> non-profit organisations.

Yes but I do not want to see it worsen, because of... what for by the
way? I did not retain many supporting arguments from the rationale.


> Today, the RIPE NCC does not make a "priority" list over organisations
> that are eligible for transfers. In other words, the RIPE NCC will do
> *nothing* to help the small/non-profit organisations to get what they
> need from the available market offerings before the big and wealthy ones
> gets to scoop up the rest. The small and non-profit organisations are on
> their own, and they are already today in a pretty hopeless situation.

Which is bad enough.


> The only way I can see that 2013-03 would worsen the environment we
> already have, is if those that have no need for IPv4 address space
> suddenly starts wanting it and trying to buy it. I just do not see why
> that would happen.

Because 2013-03 allows it : End Users won't have to justify their needs
anymore. Simple as that.

Might not happen (in a perfect world), but do we choose the right timing
to open such a pandora's box here ?

And again, for what benefit ? Just spare a little time on documentation.


> FWIW, the only reason why "need" is being removed for transfers,
> is that when you remove "need" for assignments (which *is* the goal),
> "need" at the allocation level becomes a meaningless concept, because
> the latter builds on the former.

Of course, yes (except for the goal).

BTW it works the other way round : would you allow wasting of allocations
(obviously last /8 policy does not) ? if not, you should not allow wasting
of assignments. Simple logic.

A->B is equivalent to /B->/A

Best regards,
Sylvain