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

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, remco van mook <remco.vanmook at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:49 PM Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at velea.eu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','elvis at velea.eu');>> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Doesn't everyone? There's a reason the minimum allocation size pre-runout
> was never smaller than a /21. As said, the purpose of final /8 is *not* to
> keep doing business as usual - those days are over and are never to return.
> Adding additional discontiguous prefixes form the final /8 pool to existing
> LIRs, aside from being bad engineering, does not provide a scalable
> solution; at the end of the race you now have two separate /22s and as you
> managed to run out of the first one, you'll run out of the second one as
> well.  At the same time it's one less company that is able to get their own
> onramp to the IPv4 internet.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> A /22 every 18 months will give 'newish' LIRs (but not the 'newest') a
> single extra /22. Come round 2, there will be none to be had. To me, this
> looks like an extra final cigarette when you resolved to stop smoking. The
> policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the one
> allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already.
>
>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>
> It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or
> so. There's another word for companies that keep new entrants out, but I'm
> pretty desperate to keep that word out of this discussion. Legislation
> takes a dim view.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of
> other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow
> additional NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that
> gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so
> basically, allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and
> good for competition.
>

On the other hand, why not over is over, even a bit v4 is wasted in the end
in a world of v6, who cares?

>
> Best,
>
> Remco
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151020/73eeeb79/attachment.html>