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

Good Morning everyone!
I know you missed me since yesterday...

El 02/07/2014 21:33, Gert Doering escribió:
> 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).
About this point. Its clear, but at this moment cant know the legal 
implementations.
I'll try to inform, but by the moment, what about if you recieve a court 
requirment saying: Hey, what customer had that IP Address in that 
date/hour? The court requirement NEVER said what the customer was doing 
so, at this moment noone of the "save IP space" mechanism is valid since 
we wont be able to correctly reply to the court requirement.
>
>
>> 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.
That is true and Im sorry, but with only 1 Public IP Address you can 
have a really fu**king big cluster, a cloud, whatever you want. If vhost 
work for ISP Customer, as we said in Spain "another roster would sing"
>
>
>> 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.
I'll wait then. Im sure im not the only one in this position, and again, 
as we say in spain, who doesnt cry doesnt suck. And no, is not that kind 
of suck.
>
> [..]
>> 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.
Im just asking for a little bit of flexibility. I dont want to throw 
away all the IP space RIPE have.

At this moment, Im sure there are LIRs with a /22 who only need a /24 
and LIRs with a /22 who need more. If the proposal to remove the minimum 
allocation of /22 goes well, maybe something can be done about this.
- New LIRs recieving a first allocation of /23 or /24? (And you can say; 
This will f**k the routing table. But /24 announces already happens)
- New LIRs can ask for more allocations but in stacks of /24 up to a 
total of /21?

If the problem is saving IP space for future LIRs, giving away /22 to 
all LIRs, independent to their needs, is a waste of space.

Maybe and for the future, we should start talking about what should IANA 
do about legacy allocations not in use. Maybe forcing them to return 
space if they dont use/dont want it anymore instead of giving the chance 
to sell it. Dont know, Im really new to the world of RIRs/LIRs so Im 
sure you will know more about this than me. This could have been 
discussed before, dont know.

Kind Regards,

-- 
Daniel Baeza
Centro de Observación de Red
Dpto. Internet y Telefonía
Television Costa Blanca S.L.
Telf. 966190565
WEB: http://www.tvt.es
Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es

--AVISO LEGAL--
  
En cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protección de datos de carácter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electrónico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, están dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de envío y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato.
Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y especificación de los mismos, derechos que podrá hacer efectivos dirigiéndose a Televisión Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).