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

Hi Riccardo,

>>> A new entrant would see his investments vanified
>>> 
>> Address space is not an investment. The only reasons transfers were allowed in the first place (and this was not an easy decision back then) is to keep the database information accurate and to get some unused address space back in use.
> 
> About investments:
> To set up my ISP I needed networking, infrastructure, IP transit, hosting services, IP addresses.
> I payed a signup fee and that was an investement to be an LIR and do better business as an ISP. I pay annualy a membership fees and this is part of the costs to run the business.
> if I look to my management server (a couple of server hotsed outside my network) I see that I pay 16 € per month for a /29 as part of the contract with my hosting provider... so actually yes IP space is a small part of the investements or costs in any case.

You're taking this out of context. We're talking about 2016-03 here. Everything you mention is about the cost of running an ISP. This proposal doesn't change a thing for that: you still get your /22. The only thing that changes is that you can't sell it.

> About transferts:
> The same is today. Main reasons for a transfert are not renumbering and database consistence or unused IPs? Unused Ips is not my case I have so few.
> This proposal puts the new LIRs in a worse condition even it already is. We are not SICK, we are late entrants. I don't see any reason to create CLASS-E "unusable LIRs"  to keep them far from the IP market old LIRs created.

What are you talking about? The only thing this proposal prevents is from selling a single /22. Jumping from there to "unusable LIRs" makes no sense.

> Are you really thinking that I came out with a proposal like 2015-05 to catch more IPs to sell them?

We're not talking about 2015-05 here...

> I am not selling IPs 'cause i need them for assignements to customers

In that case this policy proposal doesn't change anything for you.

> but the first thing my they ask me when I propose consulting for IPv6 trasnition is "can I have the assigned space for me one day to keep on running the network"

And the answer to that has always been "no". Please read section 7 of https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649. It contains this text:

"""
Clear contractual arrangements are mandatory for PA space. End Users requesting PA space must be given this or a similar warning:

Assignment of this IP space is valid as long as the criteria for the original assignment are met and only for the duration of the service agreement between yourself and us. We have the right to reassign the address space to another user upon termination of this agreement or an agreed period thereafter. This means that you will have to re-configure the addresses of all equipment using this IP space if you continue to require global uniqueness of those addresses.
"""

>> We still have M&A for cases where businesses split up, merge, get sold etc. That is not affected by this policy proposal.
> The evidence of a disvantage of newcomers is still there.

How? All that this proposal limits is them selling their /22, which you keep telling me is not your intention.

> Black market will substitute normal transfers regulations

Please read my reply to Nick Hilliard two days ago, we were discussing the same issue and I am not yet sure that this is true.

> and creative implementations of M&A will come to overcome the policy,

M&A are explicitly allowed, based on feedback from the working group.

> transparency will go far from database and statistics and transfert evidence.
> You want all of this?

I wouldn't want that, but I cannot see how you reach that conclusion...

>>> 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!
>>> 
>> An LIR assigns addresses to its customers. That is how the allocation/assignment model works. Selling PA addresses isn't part of that. And besides: you can only sell allocations to other LIRs, so those "customers" have to be LIRs anyway, so they can get their own /22.
> 
> Again, selling PA is out there and there are many here on the list proud of it.
> We were in Bucarest celebrating this good manner of JUMP Management making space available to their end users signin up as new members.
> 
> Second: avoid my customers to sign up and waste a /22 while needing only a /24 was exacly the purpose of 2015-05
> I tried to explain everyone (with Radu who shared the same point about this) that many customers are signin up wasting space just for the needing of a /24.

Then assign /24s, or even smaller, to your customers from your PA allocation. That is what it is for!

> This customer is mine not yours. And what you want me to have no address space to serve him so we can let him create his own LIR? He is in a completely different kind of business nothing to deal with internet but the use!!!!

And this is related to you not being able to sell your /22 anymore under this policy proposal in what way exactly?

> This means put every newcomer LIRs after 14/09/2012 out of the market

You keep saying that, but not being able to sell your /22 really doesn't do that.

> Just as an example? transition
> Sander, I repeated more than one time in this list that I have customers that ask for a /24 and IPv6 transition consulting services to run their new datacenter or multihome their networks. Perfect legitimate needing.

Again: you have a PA allocation, make assignments from it. This has nothing to do with selling your /22.

> Do I really need to explain any detail on the list about my business model? Want to join the smallest business? I don't think RIPE NCC need to take care of mine small business.
> I am really disappointed about you are treating us (new comers LIR after 14/09/2015).

Excuse me? This community has written policy so that you can have a /22 for free with your LIR membership instead of nothing.

> We don't force anything: we don't force LIRs or end user use IPv6 bla bla bla.

You are being confronted with the fact that IPv4 has run out for normal business purposes. Yes, that is annoying. You need to either organise your network infrastructure in such a way that you minimise the amount of IPv4 addresses you need, and if you still need more addresses you'll have to find someone who will transfer them to you. Still: 2016-03 doesn't change anything in that regard.

> Proposing introducing only a light control on IPv6 deployment I was adviced that every LIR is free to do what he need with space publically at RIPE72.

Yes, every LIR is free to do whatever they wish, and that includes the freedom of dealing with the consequences. It does not entitle anybody to use their addresses and then come for more. It means that it is up to each LIR to choose how they deal with the limited number of addresses they have.

>> Why? The LIR still has their PA allocation, can use it to provide service to customers etc. Nobody is taking a PA allocation away from the LIR.
> I am in doubt if RIPE NCC will go legal or illegal forcing companies to keep running or closing LIRs.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean here.

> IP market is there. I would have preffered an IPv4 transfert model without it but if it has been approved so we should care about it.

There is an IPv4 market. This working group allowed it so that there was an incentive to get unused address space back in use. This working group also created the policy that gives you a /22 now, so that new entrants can start running your network without having to go to that market immediately. The only thing 2016-03 is doing (as of version 2) is to stop people from getting /22s to sell them on. People running a network and requesting a /22 for themselves without the intention of selling it (as you assure us you are) will not be impacted by this proposal.

> This is higher the disadvantage to get rid of newcomers for the reason explained above.

"to get rid of newcomers"? No idea what you are talking about...

>> Apparently there are still lots of people that don't understand that the IPv4 barrel is as good as empty. I have to admit that I do sympathise with efforts to get rid of this FUD that IPv4 can still be "business as usual".
> Sorry my english is not so good and I didn't understood that last comment.

It means that, as you have discovered, you can't just run IPv4 networks like it was done 5 or 10 years ago.

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/20160618/0d7155c4/attachment.sig>