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

> Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene.
> I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening.

And such LIR would sue who? Himself? RIPE NCC is not a government body, nor a private company. It's an organisation of members, and such a LIR would have to be a member with set voting rights. You can't really sue for policy changes because you don't like how other, equal members voted. I'm not a lawyer but I don't see this stand in court. 

Missed argument.

Kind Regards,
Dom

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid
Sent: 16 April 2016 12:22
To: Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <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)


> On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Maybe, maybe not.

This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.

> 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)

Feel free to submit policy proposals which make those chnges. :-)

> 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.

Tough. When you’ve burnt though the free pool, you *still* won’t have the v4 space to do these things that can’t be done with NAT or whatever. What are you going to do then? And why can’t/won't you adopt these measures now?

>> New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is 
>> and should plan accordingly.
> 
> No, most of them don’t.

Well frankly, that’s their problem. Anyone building a network or setting up a business now which is predicated on a never-ending abundance of IPv4 simply hasn’t done their homework. I wish them luck. They’re going to need it.

> 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.

So what? The rules and circumstances were different back then. Things change. Deal with it.

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

Well frittering away the free pool is not an option. And even if it was, it could not solve the problems you appear to think this proposal would solve.

We’re essentially out of IPv4. *Everyone* simply has to recognise that fact and take appropriate action.

>> 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).

Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene.

I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening.