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

Hi Remco,

On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote:
> 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.
We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few 
presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this 
topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members 
registered after 2012 need more than the default /22.

Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a 
similar policy and it seems to be working just fine.
> 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.
Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work 
with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months.
>
> 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.
Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive? 
This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to 
it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations 
already received.

I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those 
that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more 
space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via 
the transfer market is really high).
- would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please 
share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.
>
> 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.
>
cheers,
Elvis
>> 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
>>