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

Hi Roger,

thank you for your questions. I try to answer below


Il 21/05/2016 09:45, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>> Dear Working Group,
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:02:43PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>>> The Discussion Period for the proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation
>>> Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 June 2016.
>> this has been decided by proposers and WG chairs based on your discussion
>> and the upcoming AP meeting at RIPE72 (next wednesday) - keep the proposal
>> active until after the discussion there (see below), then decide how to
>> proceed.
>>
>>
>>  From the discussion it was very clear that there is no consensus today
>> to go ahead - without going into detail, it's clear that there are two
>> strong factions, one that wants to preserve the remaining /22s for
>> "as long as possible", while the other one wants to ease the pain for
>> those LIRs that have too little IPv4 today, willing to incur earlier
>> total run-out as a consequence.
> Since we've supposed to work toward something that can gain consensus
> I've got a few questions for the authors, and those supporting 2015-05.
>
>
> So far all I've heard, I might have missed something, is that there is a
> need for more addresses. None have said why, or where there is a
> need. Why do you need more addresses and for what?
In my opinion there's a trend change from what happened years before.
Standing on  current allocation rate and LIRs sign up rate we can see 
there's general trend in the internet growth.
Internet grew a lot up to 2000-2002 then the trend was pretty the same 
up to few year ago.
I think it's mainly due to the fact that in many countries become an 
"operator" is easier than before
As example in Italy we had many restrictions that made things very 
difficoult without a good capital fund behind.
Nowadays things are easier and many new small operators are coming to 
the market.
The WISP market grew a lot in these years look at You can look at 
Ubiquity or Candium Networks sells.
In Italy is the fiber time and carry and transport fiber optics is 
easier than before.
So, in my opinion that's why we are registering such big growth trend in 
LIR sign ups.
In the meanwhile Last /8 allocation policy in showing out its limits 
that created some competitive problems to new entrants.

And at the same time we (as community) and RIPE NCC as our point of 
coordination weren't able to provide a reable solution to help IPv6 
adoption.
Small operators has less capitals, rsources and experience but the 
policy asked them to act before the big ones.

2015-05 trys to address competivive disvantage of new entrants and small 
operators while reminding everyone there's only a solution: IPv6.
If you try to adopt it you may find your way out of the problem.
The clear suspect I have is that there are too many interest to keep 
calm about IPv6 to save market value of IPv4 as long as possibile.

>
> Be specific, is it for having more address for the end-users? Datacenter?
> Services? Infrastructure? IPv6-to-IPv4 services? CGN? Proxyes?
>
>
It's happening: end customers of new operators (read as new LIRs) are 
requesting new services such as datacenters or multihoming and IPv6 
deployment in the meanwhile.
Those are the tipical request that I reiceve. For example to multihome 
and bgp a customer I need a /24
What if I have no address space to provide?  I can ask my customer to 
sign up and he will get a /22 automatically wasting a 3 x /24
I think in many cases this is why we are registering such new sign up 
growth trends.
I already said in past emails that when I started our business of fiber 
optic provider the carrier said to us "ask us for transport and access 
but not for addresses. sign up and get yours"
This is reflecting in all the chain from top to bottom. This could be a 
point where to act. If we turn the request re-introducing justification 
and we turn minimum request to a /24
we can address this kind of problem while slowing down LIRs sign up rate 
to obtain a /23 or /24 to address this kind of requests

hope this help in understand small player needings
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/20160522/55dacb4d/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/20160522/55dacb4d/attachment.jpg>