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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
<ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
<snip>
>>    As Roger Jørgensen has explained, once the policy was triggered, it
>> was to apply to all subsequent allocations.
>
> However, in the meantime some events happened:
>  - recovered space issue - space returned to IANA 2012-05 to 2014-04 and
>  gradually returned starting 2014-05

already known, space would be returned, and redistributed, it would still
be covered by the policy since it would cover all allocation after that point
in time.


>  - 2013-03 - no need checking
>  - 2014-04 - no ipv6 requirement

adjustment, as we do with all policy. Maybe we should make it harder
to get IPv4 space? ... but how would that help on the part we really need,
more IPv6? Also it might over time make the RIR registry incomplete
and full of error, that will hurt the Internet way more than the current
gaming actual harm... as sad as that is... :-(


>  - still keeping a high (~= /8) level of "somehow available space"

as said earlier, it does not matter, the policy was there to safeguard
some space for future startups. We are just lucky that the space has
grown due to return and reallocation!


>  - policy abuse, pushing to limits and general change in "who is a LIR"
>  (get-to-transfer, multi-LIR/company, out-of-continent LIRs - more and
>  more of them, corporate LIRs or simply "just want my damn ASN and /24"
>  LIRs)

... and here we are again back at the core, the abuse/gaming the system
to get more address space. The only real solution to this is to deploy
IPv6. Handing out more address space than  /22 is not a solution
because there will always be a need for more. There is no upper limit
and we just run out way faster, and as said over and over again, that
will ruin the point with this policy - safeguard some space for the future
startups.



I am happy with giving RIPE NCC power to turn down request from
obvious fake company... however that has it's own problem and not
all of them are solvable by this working group, some might not be
solvable at all.


> I hope everybody does realize how this proposal came to life.

giving out more space to those that ask for it is not a good solution
with the future in mind. However if everyone want to be greedy here
and now and say screw the future (sorry the language)...



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no