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

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to
> fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there
> will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30?
> years from now.

Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again,
the free pool will not survive 10 years.

And if the purpose is to last as long as possible, other changes are
required (strict needs assesment, more restrictions, penalties for not
respecting the conditions)

> LIRs who take advantage of this proposal would continue to fail to deal
> with the v4 run-out.

Because they can't. You can deploy as much IPv6 as you want, there still
are things that require IPv4 without CGN. If you can't provide it, you
don't sell.

> New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is and
> should plan accordingly.

No, most of them don't. They barely understand what RIPE and RIPE NCC
are. Then at some point they find out (few of them know already) that
years ago some people could get more space than they ever needed, while
right now you can't get more than half of the previous minimum even if
you need.

I can understand that everybody should switch to transfers market at
some point, but with only a /22 you will have lots of troubles reaching
that point. Cases where you can go directly from a /22 to transfers are
more the exception than the rule.

> It's the only sane option. But there are others. Choose wisely.

In certains situations (read market segements) there are no other
options. At least not today.

> This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already
> have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right.

Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only
case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a
"large enough block" (usually more than a /22).

> BTW what’s to stop an unscrupulous LIR from repeatedly requesting extra
> /22s (or whatever) through this proposal and then selling/transferring
> the space without updating the database? If they tried to do this today,

Time ? 
On the other hand, I would say that someone accepting the purchase of a
block not declared in the database has a real problem to solve.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs