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

Hi Gert,

Maybe my message was a little too extensive. I was in the room in London
when the subject was discussed and I remember all the details.

What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the
community will benefit from it or some small group of people.

To summarize the effects will be :
 - higher membership fees
 - higher IPv4 prices on the market
What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ?
The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ?

There are many problems, issues, reasons, for anyone to sustain or be
against this policy but setting all aside, let's just focus on the
benefits of adopting this policy. Is anyone convinced that it will bring
a positive effect to the RIPE community ? That's whom the policies
should serve.

We have another saying in Romania "don't sell the bear's skin while he's
in the forrest", so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in
any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the
entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to
preserve them, but that's in the past.

Ciprian


On 6/9/2015 6:40 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
>> A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be
>> the only reason that drives our actions.
> 
> Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this.
> 
> Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this
> list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was 
> brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed 
> that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy.  It was not something
> he came up with "to increase his profits".
> 
> Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on
> addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful.  Yes, we 
> should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never
> happened.
> 
> The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to 
> the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market 
> will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear 
> to and from IPv6.  It will not completely achieve that, of course, but
> make the obvious loophole less attractive.
> 
> (So the argument "let's burn IPv4 and be done with it!" is also outside
> the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy,
> feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent)
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
>