[address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi,

On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 14:50, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years
> with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22".

I find the situation a little more complex than that:
 - First, the "in a few years with no IPv4" is not so far away. Even
 with current policy, it is for 2020, with a lot of chance 2021. With
 the proposal, worst case scenario is that we MAY loose up to 18 months
 (more likely something in the 6-12 months range ). Which is not
 completely sure (as Martin Huněk noted a few messages ago).
 - Second, right now the NCC is just handing out /22 to whoever can pay
 for them (with only a small extra administrative restriction during the
 last 6 months). For me this is plain "selling IP addresses" (concept
 that the NCC avoided like hell int the past), and it is also defeating
 the "keep space for later entrants" purpose. No need check (as in "do
 you really need that space" *), no requirement to deploy IPv6 of any
 kind, just a simple "pay to have it".

> Well, to make a useful discussion possible I think it's important to look
> at the timescales. A policy that changes expected depletion from e.g. 100
> years to 90 years might not be a problem, but other timescales will
> definitely be a problem.

Given the time we have left (very unlikely to have 60 moths left)
anything starts being problematic.

> I think the timescale I have heard that people would find acceptable is
> *at least* 5 to 10 years. If you look at the minutes of RIPE 70
> (https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-70) you'll see
> a statement from RIPE NCC when discussing this policy proposal that "the
> RIPE NCC’s IPv4 pool was expected to last for around five years.".

It all depends on when we start counting. If we start counting from
09/2012, we will meet the 5 years lifetime even with the current
proposal. If we start now (10/05/2016), we will most probably NOT reach
5 years.
We will NOT get 10 years of "last /8". 
And we should probably stop thinking "X years starting from now on".
Time passes.
In the meantime, people do "whatever seems appropriate" to get more v4
space. And unfortunately more and more people find there is no other
solution than cheating in some way or another. The policy was supposed
to calm down this.

> Someone would need to come up with a radical new idea to get out of the
> current deadlock. Which is why I urge all new participants in this

Does anybody feel that a more complex policy is acceptable ? Does making
the policy more complex in order to get longer timespan for the free
pool (which does not exclude extra allocations if conditions are met) is
somthing that may get consensus ?

(*) Some time ago, a lot of "new players" would have started by being
single-homed and having one (or more) "ASSIGNED PA" block(s) from their
upstream. Then they were taking an ASN, and then became LIRs. Those
going LIR from day one were not exactly commonplace.
Today, even for those that are ok with being single-homed with an
"ASSIGNED PA" from their upstream, if the size of the requested block
goes beyond a certain size (commonly /24, occasionally down to /26),
they are recommended (or even pushed) to become a LIR and get their /22.
There are others that just "can afford" to spend some money to become
LIR and get some space, even if it's not really used, just in case
things go wrong in the future.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs