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

Sorry, got bumped into and accidentally hit Send before I was done :)  Here is the rest:

Hi Payam,

> My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably without proper justification]
> I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst and he declined our request although we had proved that our need was even more than what we submitted in our application, and eventually the block which he approved was less than what we requested.
> And at those time, some other western LIRs got their IP blocks.

Please don't make allegations like that. I have worked for western LIRs and we had exactly the same process and issues as everybody else.

> These days we are trying to buy new IP blocks, and those LIRs are selling!
> 
> That funny story is the real story! While the proposed policy looks very rational, but it is not going to solve the issue!
> The demand is there so the market will find a way to satisfy the demand!

People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let someone else set up an LIR and just sell the space.

> If I were the gentleman who proposed this policy, I would have proposed another policy to push the LIRs who had not used their IPs (or pretending to use that) in favor of LIRs in the developing countries who really can't serve new customers due to lack of IP space.

That is what the /22s are for: to allow newcomers (from anywhere within the region, we don't discriminate on location) access to some free IPv4 addresses.

> we should not close our eyes on the approvals which were given to LIRs who got plenty of IPs, and they were supposed to use all the IPs within two years following the allocation

It happens. Business plans change, market conditions change. Some people may even have lied about their needs in such a way that it is impossible to prove. Remember: allocations were made based on expected growth. Expectations often don't come true exactly the way people planned things. ISP planning often happens for 3-to-6-month periods. The 24 month estimates for allocation requests have always been difficult to judge.

> , and still they have a lot of un-assigned (and even un-advertised!) ones!

Advertising space in the global routing table has never been a requirement. There are use cases where unique addresses are required but don't need to be advertised. Think for example about private interconnection networks between companies. The companies will already be using all the RFC1918 space internally, so to avoid addressing conflicts the interconnect network needs unique addresses. Same as IXP space, which is often also not routed.

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160617/e09753ca/attachment.sig>