[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Goodmoring Remco,

I read that you don't want to comment more about 2015-05.
I'll respect you and I won't wait for an answer and we can leave 
everything for a quick chat in Copenhagen but I have to leave my comment 
on your analisys.

In your example you suppose that every LIR under a /20 will request an 
additional /22 (every 18 months after a /22 allocation has been 
reiceved) and standing on you will litterally "burn" out the space in 3 
years.

Let's see what has been done in the past:
In september 2012 there were about 9000 LIRs members and at the end of 
2013 the number grows up to 10000 LIRs.
So in your view "last /8" would have distributed about 10000 /22 on 
15130 availables from 185/8 at the end of 2013, leaving about 5000 /22 
in the pool.
In this vision you couldn't expect to leave to new entrants no more than 
5 - 6 thousand /22.
Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why 
such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time?

2015-05 requires to act for IPv6
Current policy required in the past to obtain an IPv6 allocation and do 
exacly nothing more
Nowadays the allocation policy requires just pay the fee and do nothing.

regards
Riccardo

Il 11/05/2016 21:53, Remco van Mook ha scritto:
>> On 11 May 2016, at 14:52 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote:
>>
>>> Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to
>>> 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than
>>> half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) -
>>> effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in
>>> the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their
>>> last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more
>>> than half, no?
>> No, because:
>> - it will not be dedicated to "further allocations"
>> - there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to
>> qualify
>> - with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last
>> /8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further
>> allocations".
>>
> OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers:
>
> Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1)
> Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1)
>
> New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3)
> Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2)
>
> Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy to get another allocation.
> Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year.
>
> Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool should last until early 2019.
> At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now empty as well.
>
> So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere in early 2019.
> The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185 pool' was gone by the time it was needed.
>
> Now let's look at the current policy. As of today, a total of about 15,130 /22s are available.
> Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the available pool should last until 2025 (although the uncertainties are quite high if you extrapolate that far out)
>
> So on one hand, we have a proposal that will be game over for all in about 3 years, or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for existing and future LIRs well into the next decade.
>
> At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so they tell me.
>
> The proposed policy has an impact (even the policy proposal itself says so (4)), and one that I strongly object to.
>
> (if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so)
>
> Sources:
> 1) https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
> 2) https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016/supporting-documents/ripe-ncc-annual-report-2015
> 3) https://labs.ripe.net/statistics
> 4) https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>
> Remco
> (no hats)

-- 

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/20160512/e6e0ff84/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/20160512/e6e0ff84/attachment.jpg>