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

 

Hi Peter, 

I do understand the argument of members not if favour of the proposal.
We should all be adopting IPv6 and other means to overcome the problem
and indeed the 185/8 should remain for new entrants as CGNAT etc. 

The reality is, we are still in a world where widespread IPv6 adoption
is very slow. A single /22 is simply not enough for a new ISPs to grow
and become competitive. Yes the marketplace is there, but most of us
requiring additional IPv4 simply don't have the financial resource to
make use of it at the current (frankly astronomical) rates. 

>From my understanding, the new proposal is to keep the 185/8 for new
entrants as it was always intended, but allow returned addresses from
IANA (currently in the region of a /9 to /10) to be reallocated. To me
this is not unreasonable and what I am in favour of. 

Kind regard, 

Gavin 

On 2016-04-15 09:16, Peter Hessler wrote: 

> If you need/want more IPv4 addresses, the marketplace is available.
> RIPE should not give more addresses to people that already have some.
> 
> Growth into a market that should be killed, should not be encouraged by
> RIPE.
> 
> On 2016 Apr 14 (Thu) at 15:51:56 +0100 (+0100), ripe at scholarwebservices.com wrote:
> : 
> :
> :Hello, 
> :
> :I am in favour of the proposal. Similar to Aled's comments below, we are
> :a small entity that is restricted to growth with a single /22. I believe
> :the 185/8 should be restricted to new entrants but allowing
> :recycled/returned address space (outside of the 185/8) to be allocated,
> :providing the LIR has less than a /20 in total. 
> :
> :Kind regards, 
> :
> :Gavin 
> :
> :On 2016-04-14 15:34, Aled Morris wrote: 
> :
> :> Peter, 
> :> 
> :> I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants into the market to grow. Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market. We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option. 
> :> 
> :> Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent new entrants. 
> :> 
> :> Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial allocation. 
> :> 
> :> Aled 
> :> 
> :> On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <phessler at theapt.org> wrote:
> :> 
> :>> While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to
> :>> receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the
> :>> simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems
> :>> for new entrants".
> :>> 
> :>> --
> :>> Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
> :
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160415/9aff94c5/attachment.html>