[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I disagree with the proposal too. That's another one bad policy example.

1) small companies will be very hard to join ipv4.
2) unfair play between big and small IPv4 owners.
3) in final that will not change current IPv4 distribution from last /8
significantly.

Any policy should help people to use global Ipv4 space effectively for
progress, but I can't see anything in this one policity that would help.

If the policy reason is just to make all Ipv4 management/getting harder
- may be just close giving IPv4 and that all?

The policy should make the world simple but not harder.

I talk a lot of with new small companies who want to start with IPv4.
They say bad about too much RIPE rules and police. For beginners it's
too hard to join all this, and this policy make it harder.


Yuri at IP4market


On 17.05.2016 15:58, Dominik Nowacki wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I disagree with the proposal.
> 
>  
> 
> Any such proposal would cause issues with ability of smaller players
> merging into larger ones, effectively blocking them becoming competitive
> to the long established LIRs, effectively giving an unfair advantage to
> the big players.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Dominik
> 
> Clouvider Limited
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Remco van Mook
> *Sent:* 17 May 2016 13:08
> *To:* Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>
> *Cc:* address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking
> Down the Final /8 Policy)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you Marco. 
> 
>  
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, this is another policy proposal about IPv4. It's even about the
> current allocation policy (confusingly known as 'last /8'). I'm sorry
> it's come to this.
> 
>  
> 
> The proposal doesn't aim to change a lot about the *intended* goals of
> the last /8 policy - instead, it tries to clarify the current policy and
> lock it down against creative interpretations.
> 
>  
> 
> We're in the IPv4 afterlife, and have been for about 3.5 years. The last
> scrap of IPv4 space that any LIR can get is meant for a specific purpose
> - to facilitate migration to IPv6. The age of the 32 bit integers is
> over. The other purpose of the 'last /8' policy is to be able to hand
> out IPv4 space to new entrants for as long as feasible. These specific
> purposes are currently not reflected anywhere once a block has been
> allocated, and this proposal means to change that. To summarise the
> proposed changes:
> 
>  
> 
> - All allocations handed out under the 'last /8 policy' will be
> (re-)registered as 'ALLOCATED FINAL';
> 
> - Allocations marked as 'ALLOCATED FINAL' can not be transferred or
> sub-allocated;
> 
> - Any LIR can hold up to a /22 of 'ALLOCATED FINAL' address space,
> regardless of how they got it;
> 
> - Any excess space will have to be returned to the RIEP NCC within 180
> days (however I don't intend that this is applied retroactively); 
> 
> - DNS reverse delegation will be limited to the LIR itself, and is
> limited to a total of a /22 in space.
> 
>  
> 
> And, outside of policy but enforceable as business rules following from
> this policy proposal:
> 
> - No RPKI for any 'ALLOCATED FINAL' blocks over a single /22
> 
> - No routing registry entries for any 'ALLOCATED FINAL' blocks over a
> single /22
> 
>  
> 
> Basically, every LIR gets 1 allocation, and if you no longer need it or
> you end up having more, you have to return the excess. All the extra
> limitations should be workable if you're using the space the way it was
> intended, but make it unattractive to collect allocations for other
> purposes.
> 
>  
> 
> Let's hear your thoughts. I'll be at the RIPE meeting next week where
> I'll be talking about this proposal during the first APWG session.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Remco van Mook
> 
> (no hats)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>     On 17 May 2016, at 14:05 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net
>     <mailto:mschmidt at ripe.net>> wrote:
> 
>      
> 
>     Dear colleagues,
> 
>     A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
>     is now available for discussion.
> 
>     The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining
>     address pool
>     to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
>     These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with
>     several restrictions:
> 
>     -    These allocation are not transferrable
>     -    LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or
>     acquisition
>     -    Sub-allocations are not possible
>     -    Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party
> 
>     You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>        https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
> 
>     We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
>     <address-policy-wg at ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net>>
>     before 15 June 2016.
> 
>     Regards
> 
>     Marco Schmidt
>     Policy Development Officer
>     RIPE NCC
> 
>  
>