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

Dear address-policy-wg,

This seems like a bad idea indeed. This proposal suffers from a number of
shortcomings and side-effects:

- It takes us off-message on IPv6 and creates the illusion that IPv4 address
availability is elastic and negotiable. Any relaxation of the last /8 allocation
criteria can and will be used in boardrooms throughout the industry to
re-prioritise IPv6 deployment back from a need to a want, prolonging the
transition process.

- We are incapable of reliably forecasting the future, and relaxation of the
last /8 allocation criteria will eat into the "buffer space" available to us for
reacting to new technologies and unforeseen events (far fetched example: the
need to rebuild and renumber large portions of infrastructure following a
natural disaster while the status of previously assigned resources is being
determined)

- The impact of relaxing the allocation criteria in this fashion amounts to
"bridge burning" behind the latest entrants to the market. The primary
benefactors from this policy would be recent small and mid-sized players at the
expense of any future entrants. For larger players, the increased availability
will remain insufficient to influence the business case.

Firm -1 toward this initiative. The last /8 allocation criteria is there to
ensure an orderly transition is possible for as long as possible, and the fact
we now expect it to last longer than originally anticipated is further
demonstration of its efficacy.

--
Respectfully yours,

David Monosov

On 20/10/15 16:27, 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.
> 
> 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
>>
>