[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

And now I've had the proper time to consider this, I agree with Remco and object to this proposal.
We should stick to the approach that allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in artificially shortening this period.

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook
Sent: 20 October 2015 15:27
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)


Hi all,

(no hats)

I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space.

For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.

Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.

Remco

* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal.
**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.


> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria",
> is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>    https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
>
> Regards
>
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>

Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.