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

fix in (3)
correct number is 313/6671 is 4.6%

On 01.07.2015 21:01, Staff wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
>