[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi all,

I strongly, strongly and again strongly oppose this proposal.

This policy still does not take into account that resoucers can be 
announced and in use and all of this after beeing allocated under 
regular procedures and business processes.
A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make 
possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space 
before 09/2012
With this policy any new LIR would be out of the market before entering it.

I didn't look deeply because I have no time for family reasons now but I 
am pretty sure that I can find easily in the list archive that IP 
Transfert policies were accepted even 'cause in case of network 
acquisition or M&A or many other cases renumbering customers is very 
difficoult, and having ability to transfert resources is the most easy 
way to keep consistence on database.

We were in Bucarest when celebrating Romania as the biggest transfert 
country were JUMP Management choosed to sell to its customers their 
allocation making them able to keep their business running!
How can my new LIR company can compete in the market going to its 
customer stating "be aware that the assignement I giving you if I sell 
my company
will be returned and you need to find a new LIR and renumber your 
network, and sorry most important... I will never be able to sell you 
this block or part of it
but hummm yes if you go to an LIR made before 09/2012 you can have it...."
End users will run far away from every new LIR choosing as default a LIR 
made before 09/2012. This creates barrier to ingress in the market.
The full control of IP market will be in the hand of LIR (and PI 
holders) made before 09/2012. Barriers to ingress in the market.
This is not leaving space to new entrants this is assuring control of IP 
market today.

Again: If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the 
whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are 
stockpiled and not in use.
I am pretty sure that everyone here agree that this is not possibile...

About 5.1. 4.
plase don't don't don't state in the policy that /22 is for "transition 
purposes"
In 2015-05 we tried to introduce ripeness stars and IPv6 deployment as a 
requirement for an additional /22 and at Address Policy Working Group in 
Copenhagen last 25/05 some of you experienced explained to me publically 
that we can't force old or new LIRs to deploy IPv6 and this is even the 
reason why the IPv6 requirement was removed from "last /8" allocation 
policy.
Someone else said it's LIR responsability to choose how to use space... 
IPv6 will come....bla bla bla. You teached, I learned.

At the same Address Policy Working Group well populated by experienced 
people commong understanding was that is better to leave things as is
since "last /8" is doing its best after the 2015-01 fix came.
For the above reasons and the non reached consensus we were encouraged 
to withdrawn 2015-05.
I can't believe we are still discussing about this 2016-03.

personally the only fix I would accept is to "Explicitly states that the 
current IPv4 allocation policy applies to all available IPv4 address 
space held by the RIPE NCC [...]"

regards

Riccardo


Il 16/06/2016 15:58, Marco Schmidt ha scritto:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" has been extended until 15 July 2016.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the final /8 policy.
>
> 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:
> - Several restrictions have been removed
> - Adds a recommendation that LIRs should conserve whole or part of their final /22 allocation for interoperability purposes
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
>
> 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
>
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>

-- 

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/20160616/713f3b85/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 41774 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160616/713f3b85/attachment.jpg>