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

Hello all,

I fully agree with Erik and the rest.
I still don't support this proposal.

--
George


On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com> wrote:

> Riccardo,
>
>
>
> > with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8
> policy.
>
> The fact that you don’t see it, doesn’t make it less true.
>
>
>
> RIPE IPv4 is out … the reservation of space for IXP’s and other uses (
> like future new entrance ) doesn’t change that.
>
>
>
> This is not something we have to explain .. this is not something that we
> will change.
>
>
>
> The /22 IPv4 is not for new entrance to assign to customers.. it is to
> enable them to communicate via a CGNAT from a v6 world to a v4 world.
>
>
>
> If you don’t use the obtained v4 space for the intended use, it will never
> be enough and you will always feel incorrectly treated …
>
>
>
> This policy proposal (with all respect to you and Radu and good
> intentions) needs to stop as it gives people hope on something that isn’t
> there ...
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik Bais
>
>
>
> *Van:* address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] *Namens
> *Riccardo Gori
> *Verzonden:* vrijdag 15 april 2016 7:49
> *Aan:* address-policy-wg at ripe.net; remco.vanmook at gmail.com
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended
> until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
>
>
>
> Good Morning Remco, Good Morning List,
>
> with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8
> policy.
> We are dealing with the same amount of space as September 2012 that in the
> meanwhile has been abused in several ways and there are really no
> incentives to IPv6 adoption.
>
> There was only one requirement to obtain one IPv4  /22: request and obtain
> at least from /32 IPv6 to a maximum of /29 IPv6.
> Am I wrong or this requirement has been removed?!?! Please explain that to
> a new entrant...
> What does it mean? "we are running out. here your crumbs, sorry we have no
> solution" ?!?
>
> If for you last /8 policy is a success to me IPv6 incentives policies
> looks absent. We completly failed from this point of view.
> If you look at this where IPv4 exhaustion took place IPv6 is strongly
> gowing:
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
>
> I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier
> exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it
> to grow.
>
> kind regards
> Riccardo
>
> Il 15/04/2016 00:50, remco van mook ha scritto:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks
> another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business
> is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000,
> then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem
> is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion
> that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement
> than new entrants 2 years from now.
>
>
>
> The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a
> remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle
> about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious
> loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the
> policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Remco
>
> (no hats)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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/20160415/3a073d50/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4400 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160415/3a073d50/attachment.jpg>