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

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> [2016-06-18 00:06]:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 22:37, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> > that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you?
> 
> Because it is in the past.

Yesterday is in the past but it doesn't bother me because today is
weekend. *Why* does it bother you?

> > That would revert us to back to pre-market policy. Who would want that and why?
> 
> Those that would like all allocations to be treated the same.

Which would make us run out in a few days. We've discussed this
multiple times.

> > We can only heal everyone by moving to IPv6. There is no cure in IPv4 land.
> 
> Just stop telling me how to heal. I like your new diet, I practice it
> myself, but for the moment it is far from allowing me to live. In order
> to survive I need extras that can only be found in limited quantities.
> And you want to explain me how you're doing me a favor by increasing the
> price, while people having stocks (and putting on me pressure that makes
> the new diet irrelevant) can happily live ever after ... ?

I have no idea what you mean. Seriously. What price?

> With 2015-05 I tried to fix the issue, but number of people in the
> community were against, the reason being mainly "make v4 last as long as
> possible". For me that reason makes it clear that IPv4 address space is
> meant to be the new equivalent of gold. Today, IPv6 is only a
> distraction, in the next years a "possible but unlikely option" and *AN*
> alternative in the future. But it will not become *THE* solution before
> IPv4 availability goes to ZERO (0.000000, not 0.1 or 0.01 or even
> 0.001).

No, not "make v4 last as long as possible" but "make it possible for
new entrants to get a small piece of v4 as long as possible". That is
a difference. This pool has no impact on the transfer market. Perhaps
you can find your "gold" there.

> Trying to explain me that on 14 Sept 2022 a new start-up (especially a
> content-related one) will legitimately need a /22 worth of
> provider-agnostic IPv4 space *ALONE* (i.e. IPv6 still as optional as
> today), for me it seems exaggerate. Same thing on 14 Sept 2027
> (regardless of the allocation size) is totally unacceptable. Even today
> I find it hard to hear "save v4 for future entrants"  with no incentive
> (or even obligation) to deploy v6.

I don't exactly understand what you mean. You can't force people to
deploy IPv6. A content start-up in 2022 will need to deploy IPv6 to
reach the people on the Internet that only have IPv6.

> As for the market, today, mid-2016, the market doesn't have any explicit
> need for IPv6. On the contrary, the market *DOES* require IPv4
> explicitly : no v4 = no business (mostly because "static public IPv4
> address required"). Best case, very optimistic scenario, "not enough
> business". At least in my area and most of my market. I would be
> interested to hear the situation in other areas/markets : do a customer
> that is only give IPv6 stay with you for more than 1 year by using the
> service and never calling the support ? I have examples with IPv4-only
> (they ignore v6, some voluntarily, some not) customers. I also have
> customers that explicitly request IPv6 to be disabled (most likely
> because they don't know how to dot it themselves). IPv6 is only
> acceptable as long as it comes together with IPv4. But that doesn't
> meant that it will be used.

As I said, you can't force people to adopt IPv6. They will see that
they cannot reach their customers very well with IPv4 only in the
future. We have many customers that have deployed IPv6 right now
exactly because of this. Services that depend on end-to-end
reachability (for example some VPN services) don't work very well with
DS-Lite and CGNs.

As many people have stated, if your new business depends on large
quantities of IPv4 space it will fail. That is nothing we can change.
Almost all our customers need IPv4 but most of them only need a very
small space for addressing their services. If you need more IPv4 you
will need to to NAT (CGN) or other workarounds.

> So yes, I oppose this policy as I oppose by principle anything that:
>  - changes the rules selectively, especially based on age (my most
>  important no-go for 2016-03)

The date is the activation of the last /8 pool. It has nothing to do
with the "age" of the aggregation only the addresses in the pool.

>  - does it retroactively

As was stated it will not change any transfers retroactively. It will
only apply to future transfers as it always has been with transfer
policy.

>  - tries to unbalance even more an already unbalanced market

How does it unbalance the market? It is quite a small pool.

Regards

Sebastian

-- 
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
            -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 581 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160618/4ca058bc/attachment.sig>