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

Hi Rob,

just about three stars and not more:
with 3 stars you have a working IPv6 deployment but you are not listed 
as RIPEness 'cause of absence of reverse delegation for IPv6
If you host DNS servers for reverse delegation outside of you network on 
a IPv4 only provider you can't reach 4 or 5 stars even with a perfectly 
working IPv6 deployment
3 stars looked to be a first good step to "taste" IPv6

hope this helps
regards
Riccardo

Il 14/04/2016 17:37, Rob Evans ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
>> I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based
>> on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR.
> I almost agree with you, and it's the difference between a LIR that
> holds a /21 and one that holds a /20 that's concerning me, but with
> a feeling that an extra /22 may be of far more use to an LIR that
> only holds a /22 to one that has, say, /14 of space.
>
> The RIPE community has tried to walk a line between keeping IPv4
> addresses back to ensure new entrants can join the market, and not
> needlessly hoarding addresses.  The problem with that approach is
> that we are forever doomed to make small adjustments to the policy
> to keep that balance.
>
> Give or take a bit of fluctuation when the IANA doles out a bit
> more returned space, the pool of available IPv4 space the NCC has
> is about the same now as it was three years ago, but we're about
> half-way through 185/8:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
>
> Interestingly that graph doesn't appear to show much of a change
> following the "multiple LIR" decision at the last meeting.
>
> One /16 out of the final /8 is reserved for some future need, which
> means that there are ~16,320 /22s in that block.  Let's say that's
> in the same order of magniture as there are RIPE NCC members (12,830
> at the end of 2015), but it's not a large breathing gap.
>
> The NCC only has about 8,000 /22s outside 185/8 (at the moment),
> so it all depends on what we want to classify as distributing them
> fairly.  Another /22 for those that need it?  How much will that
> pool continue to grow?  Is there a distribution of number of members
> by address space they hold?
>
> I'm also not sure about the "RIPEness" requirement.  It's an
> interesting metric, but why three rather than four?  Should we be
> encoding in policy a requirement that the NCC can change at will?
> My personal opinion (working on a network that's offered IPv6 in
> some way shape or form for 19 years), is that how I run my network
> is my (or perhaps more importantly, my customers') business.
>
> Still, at least it gives us something to talk about in Address
> Policy.  Life would be boring otherwise.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>

-- 

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rgori at wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285

--------------------------------------------------------------------
	CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to info at wirem.net
         Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160414/f016e568/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 41774 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160414/f016e568/attachment.jpg>