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

Hi Sander
It was not about allegation! It was about efficiency of policies and
procedures in place during those days.
Those practices led to today's situation. 
Statistics are clear. See who is selling, who is buying and which LIR still
has un-assigned/un-advertised/no-traffic IP blocks. 

>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

The way I interpret the proposal is: it only address part of the problem!
And by partially handling the problem, you would not be able to help the
internet community. I would suggest to look at the problem from a wider
angel. The issue is lack of IPv4 for those who need IPv4! I emphasize: it is
not "lack of IPv4" only! It is "lack of IPv4 for those who need". As I
believe there are still enough IPv4 but they is not well and fair
distributed! While there are IPv4 for sale and trades get happened, it means
still there are enough IP :)

You are more knowledgeable than me in IPv4 space utilization. You must have
seen heat-maps of IPv4 usage. Your point on use cases which do not need
having the allocated blocks advertised makes sense, but the portion of such
uses cases might not be considerable. And I would love to hear from IP
analysts that how often they have the approved allocations based on such use
cases (i.e. size-wise)


> 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.

> 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.


Sander, Please let me know who are the buyers in the current market? The new
LIR? Or the existing ISPs who do not have enough IP to server their
customers. My point was the demand is there in the market. By this proposal,
nothing happens to solve the main issue but it moves the money direction to
those who hold IP space from long time ago. If an ISP need IP, it wold
purchase! No question! Unless the pricing make the business plan out of
balance. 
So this proposal would not help the eco system. It only causes price
increase and those who can benefit from selling IP blocks.
Please look to this problem as a "system dynamic" problem. Buy putting some
restriction in a part of eco system, without tackling the real problem,
nothing would get better. 

> 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.

In response to this par of you email:
1- That is the most easiest way of justifying. why not to create and enforce
policies which return the
not-in-time-used-ip-blocks-beacuase-of-business-plans-change-and-market-cond
itions-change o the free pool? 
2- for sure nobody can judge before something happens. But when it happens,
it could be judged. So after 24-month period you can judge, and there are
lots of over-2-year allocations which could be studies :)
3-my understanding is the whole proposed policy is based on pre-judgment. It
wanted to prevent the speculation of IPv4 which is fine, but how do you know
that those who received blocks after September 14th 2012 are speculators?
Their business plans could get changed. Their market could get changed as
well. Quite similar to what you said. 
4- Also as Arash mentioned, why do you want to only make the recent
allocations unattractive for speculation, please make the whole allocations
unattractive for such purpose:)

My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4
for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those
who really require IP, can get IP.


Best Regards
-Payam


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Sander Steffann
Sent: June 17, 2016 2:29 PM
To: Payam Poursaied <payam at rasana.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [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