[address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:15:36PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote:
> This is my last email for today, Im at home a need to unplug my mind 
> from work till tomorrow.
> 
> You are talking about an ISP with millions of subscribers. I know 
> everyone here are the same, nobody is up to other, but I think the 
> community should think about not every LIR is a giant telco with 
> millions subscribers. There are also little telcos with only thousands, 
> and for sure they dont have the same bucket.
> A giant telco can spend millions ? on equipment, i+d, etc when the small 
> ones cant.

It really does not matter whether you're a telco with a million subscribers
that only has 10.000 IPv4 addresses, or a small ISP with 10.000 subscribers
that only has 1.000 IPv4 addresses.  You're f*cked anyway.

The amount of money the big telco has to invent into their carrier grade
NAT gear would make your eyes water...  while a small ISP could get this
done on a reasonably sized server with Linux on it (and I know some that do).


> A hosting provider is not an example. A single IP can host hunders or 
> thousands of webs,mails,dns, almost everything. An ISP cant do the same.

If you do simple "shared" web hosting, yes.  But there's hosting customers
that can't be served with some few CPU cycles on a shared platform, but
really need dedicated hardware (and lots of them), and those will need
a few IPv4 addresses dedicated to them.  Maybe only two /29 or so, but
if all you have is a /22, good luck growing your business.

Because *you* do not see the pain others feel, don't assume it is not there.


> About consensous, again, only 6 ppl of 3000k+ subscribers to the list 
> cant be the consensous. Nobody cant say "This is going to nothing" 
> because me and 3 more already said no, so dont go that way.

This is the way it works.  Most people never speak up.  Of those that
speak up, you need someone to actually support the idea, and convince
those that are sceptical.

At this point, there is no support, and people are more negative than
just "sceptical".

So yeah, tomorrow 20 people could show up and say "hey, we think this is
a great idea!", but today, I do not see them.

[..]
> Also, im being treated as crazy for what Im saying. As I said in first, 
> another RIR is going to do what Im trying to propose here, even while 
> they have a similar last /8 proposal, so I shouldnt be so crazy.

We'll see how the walls look like that the ARIN crowd is running into,
and it will be interesting.  The RIPE community has decided to play this one
very conservatively, and draw out the hard crash as long as possible.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140702/31f4e36d/attachment.sig>