[address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01

Greetings!

We discussed internally and divided to write our arguments against
2015-01 again in more clear way:

0) Very interesting discussion, people who see bad things in this
proposal write arguments and nobody listen to them, but people who say
ok - doesn't say anything. Not fair discussion!

1) This proposal is most profitable for RIPE NCC only and will make end
users to get IPs harder (not only from new lirs).

2) It doesn't close multi-LIR ability and that's normal.

3) People who says it's very profitable or so are mistaken. In other
case everyone can do that and them also, and they would be against this
proposal too, but it's not so as you may see. That's not so. New LIRs
ability is open for everyone and people (big IP owners) redistribute IPs
more easy. And in most cases it's easy and better then open LIRs. So the
fact is that new LIRs registration rate is the same as usual.

Rate of LIRs is normal:

Year	Objects	IPs	%of /8	Rest	Rest ip
2012	779	797696	5%	95%	15979520
2013	1836	1880064	12%	83%	14099456
2014	2469	2534400	16%	67%	11565056
2015	1587	1643520	10%	57%	9921536
Total:	6671	6855680	41%	59%	9921536

+RIPE free IPs pool is growing.

total was 627 blocks only from 185.x transfered.
but total LIRs that get 185 blocks are and total 6671, its 9,3%
it's not significant.

3) The proposal should help market and companies to redistribute IPs
from the companies who don't need them to companies who needs them.
This proposal is against it. Because it may make more difficult possible
transfer = rise the market prices and speculations. We know the real
situations on the market and understand what's going on.

If heads of this discussions and proposal doesn't listen here we bring
that up to the internet to show up in future why does that happen and
that statistics shows what we told.

4) As conclusion this proposal doesn't help to switch to IPv6. It only
helps to pull a cat by the balls.

My conclusion:
- This proposal will not help redistributing and transfer IPs. And the
main reason for us - it will make other transfers harder (but not new
LIRs. Not much people need new lirs or small blocks but ability is good.
There is already limitation as block size /22.

Yuri at Ip4market



On 01.07.2015 12:10, Gert Doering wrote:
> hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:04:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
>> Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not
>> matter. Right?
>> 
>> If anybody supports this proposal *and write +1* his voice will
>> be counted, if don't he should write many arguments.
>> 
>> May be someone doesn't like this text but this is the trooth.
> 
> Please read up how the policy development process in the RIPE
> region works.
> 
> We're in Last Call now, which means "any arguments that have been
> brought up and addressed in discussion and review phase are no
> longer interesting" (because we consider them to be addressed, and
> per Sander's summary, have reached rough consensus even if not
> everybody agrees).
> 
> The Last Call phase is specifically there to bring up *new*
> arguments that have been overlooked before.
> 
> Whether *I* agree with you or anyone else has nothing to do with
> how the PDP works - if the argument is not new, it is not
> interesting, and just noise on the list.  If people insist on
> creating noise, they will be quietened.
> 
> (Note that I'm also totally not interested in "support!" statements
> in this phase)
> 
> Gert Doering -- APWG chair
>