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

Tore,

can we turn back to non silly insinuations? and please stop personal 
attacks. If your read again 2015-05 you can easily find out that is not 
so silly.

Currently the only reasonable objection about 2015-05 is that may (I 
underline may) speed up the allocation rate.
Please note that this ojection is based on the insinuation that every 
LIR qualifing for ad additional /22 will ask for it.
You should note the same was done with last /8: about 16000 /22 with 
about 8000 LIRs at that time datas are on the list.
So with the same insinuation no more than half the block to future 
member cames from who toughs last /8.
There's was no idea at that time about recovered space from IANA.
 From this point of view there's no difference between the two policies.

Rorger asked to explain what kind of needs or problems the policy is 
going to address and I reported clear examples.
Current LIRs sign up rate is affacted by LIRs asking their end-users to 
sign up to save their ip resources and these customers are wasting space
creating other unused space you can find this in 2015-05 and much more

regards
Riccardo


Il 23/05/2016 20:57, Tore Anderson ha scritto:
> * Riccardo Gori
>
>> I think I answered, It's not nice to have, It's business demand and LIRs
>> should be able to offer... with a /22 I can serve just up to 2 or 3 of
>> my tipical business  customers.
>> This is lack of competitiveness.
> So, let me get this straight:
>
> In order to facilitate growing your business beyond three customers,
> you've submitted a RIPE policy proposal that'd let you get eventually
> another 3*/22 from the free pool. This would then allow you to grow your
> business to having 8-12 customers. Right?
>
> Assuming 2015-05 does go through: when your prospective customer number
> 13 is knocking on your door, should we then expect you to return with
> another policy proposal to change 2015-05 /20 ceiling to /18?
>
> Assuming that proposal also goes through: should we expect you to return
> again, asking the RIPE community to extend the /18 ceiling by another
> two bits, so that you can take on customer number 49?
>
> And so on...
>
> In any case, it is inevitable that at some point in time the RIPE NCC
> will simply not have any IPv4 address space to give you, regardless of
> what the policy allows. What will you do then, exactly? And why aren't
> you already doing it today?
>
> Tore

-- 

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/20160523/751502bd/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/20160523/751502bd/attachment.jpg>