[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Ian,

This policy isn't going to change the ability of a large organisation to
grown since the amount of space we're talking about is relatively small,
and totally trivial to an LIR with (the equivalent of) nearly 700 /22s.

I don't think the policy fails the test of "fairness" simply because larger
LIRs won't be getting addresses as the "benefit" of an additional /22 would
be marginal for them anyway.

I would hope that large LIRs don't make objections to this proposal just
because they don't see any benefit to them - that come come across as
selfish.

If we limit the allocation of remaining space to brand new LIRs only, it
means that small ISPs in their first growth spurt might be driven to form a
second LIR to get that second /22 of space..

I know companies who've done this.  It isn't sensible.  The proposal makes
it possible to achieve the sensible result without resorting to stupid
behaviour.

Aled


On 14 April 2016 at 16:08, Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk> wrote:

> "Small" providers want to grow.
> "Large" providers want to grow too.
> "Medium" providers presumably want to grow as well.
> (for some value of "grow")
>
> In all cases, this means IPv6, not IPv4.
>
> I prefer the current policy that is in place.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
> Behalf Of Dominik Nowacki
> Sent: 14 April 2016 16:02
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until
> 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
>
> And why is that Ian ?
>
> Dominik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
> Behalf Of Dickinson, Ian
> Sent: 14 April 2016 16:01
> To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until
> 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
>
> I object to this proposal as written.
>
> I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based on a
> notional arbitrary "size" of LIR.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
> Behalf Of Marco Schmidt
> Sent: 14 April 2016 13:42
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13
> May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation
> Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
>
> The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback
> and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new
> Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.
>
> Some of the differences from version 1.0 include:
> - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space
> outside 185/8
> - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive
> additional allocations
> - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>
> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net>.
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160414/10afb33c/attachment.html>