[address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi Sander, Hi Peter,

Il 09/05/2016 14:50, Sander Steffann ha scritto:
> Hi Peter,
>
>> My main objection to this proposal is simple:  It depletes the available
>> pool for _new_ participants faster.  I strongly believe any new actor
>> should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available
>> from RIPE.  For an actor with non-zero addresses to get more addresses,
>> there is a secondary market.
> 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".
What about those holding large space and changed the policy to be 
triggered when reaced a last /8 and not before?
Looks like eating the chocolate top cover of the cake and leave the dry 
part to the others. Here's your crumbs we are very respective.
>
>> Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a
>> middle ground can be met.  Based on my understanding of the other
>> objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the
>> objection side.
> 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.

>
> 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.".
>
>> I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any
>> solution can be proposed.
> The stated expected timescale already seems to be around the bare minimum lifetime that is accepted, and much less than what many people would like. I therefore have to agree that any proposal that shortens that lifetime even further will very probably not get consensus.
>
> 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 discussion to read the mailing list archives so they can get the full current picture before they propose a solution.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander

This policy is a real way to slow down a little bit the allocation rate 
for the reasons above stated.
In total there are about 13700 LIRs about 9.05 millions addresses of 
185/8 have been allocated since 2012

Otherwise is possible to change completly the way the unused space is 
handled. Why don't place a pay per use?
I think we would see a lot of transfert take place and allocation rate 
will magically slow down


regards
Riccardo
-- 

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rgori at wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285

--------------------------------------------------------------------
	CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to info at wirem.net
         Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160511/cd9d379e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 41774 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160511/cd9d379e/attachment.jpg>