[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Guten Tag Garry,

I didn't argue both ways, one was the opinion of the RIPE NCC in their impact analysis (in my understanding), and the other one was my opinion. 
Maybe financial discussions are not important to this group, but I do think they are important to RIPE members altogether, so in my opinion it is a valid argument, to which the members should be made aware of, and thus they should vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships directly.
And, some time ago, there was a vivid discussion between members, that Ipv6 adoption should be encouraged intensly. If the free pool of Ipv4, there is no better encouragement than that. Of course this has pros and cons, but it is a reality, as long as ipv4 exists, and is still available as allocation or transfer, ipv6 will not be fully adopted. In my opinion this policy will prolongue the process of ipv6 adoption. Of course some people will benefit from this, but the big picture should be taken into consideration, as long as the procentage is not a high one (10% in my opinion is low).

Matei Storch
[F]: General Manager
[M]: +40728.555.004
[E]: matei at profisol.ro
[C]: Profisol Telecom


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 14:01
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Guten Tag,
> Hi!
>
> Fully support your arguments.
>
> 09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" <matei at profisol.ro>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of 
>> view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my 
>> understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from 
>> the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new 
>> /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last 
>> more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time.
The 5-year-calculation is based on a linear growth - as v4 availability will be more and more limited, there will most likely be more companies looking to receive PI addresses (which aren't available anymore), which will cause them to become an LIR for the sole purpose of receiving their own address space. So without other effects of returned addresses, I would imagine that timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now look at the uptake of IPv6 at both providers and end customers - do you really believe that the Internet will be ready to go IPv6-only within three years? I would love to see that, but I seriously doubt it ... so anybody left at that point in time with only IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ...
>> Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs 
>> because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered.
>> Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros 
>> setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and 
>> it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in.
Financial reasons aren't the scope of the WG (and neither should nor are they I believe for RIPE) as far as ensuring the Internet with it's reliance on IPv4 are concerned. RIPE got bye well before the run on the final IPv4 addresses began, and I believe even if we stop(ped) hoarders from abusing the system in order to get around the "one /22 limit", they will still be able to get around fine. Also, you can't argue both sides in your favor - either you say there is no problem as there aren't many hoarders, or you say that the income is essential and shouldn't be dismissed. Saying both contradicts yourself ... (additionally, I don't think monthly fees would be noticeably lower even with additional hoarders coming in)

>> Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should 
>> be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. 
>> Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game"
>> and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok.
Oh, so somebody tries to abuse the intent of a policy, and they shouldn't be subject to possible changes of the system? The price for the /22's he's getting only doubled, so I believe that's still OK. Bad Luck.

Regards, Garry