[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017, Riccardo Gori wrote:

> Hi Carlos,

Hi Riccardo, All,


> sorry for the late reply I was out for work.
> 
> I'll reply only to your question "> Fix IPv6 rate adoption by policy? "
> Carlos, this policy proposal aims to fix IPv4 rate depletion... so why don't use a policy for "rate adoption"? do you see any difference?

Yes, i see a clear difference.

The RIPE community can approve/adopt a policy that has some impact on IPv4 
rate depletion in the NCC's service Area.

How can the RIPE community "enforce" adoption of any new technology?
I really don't know. I would certainly prioritize that policy proposal if 
i had an answer to that question :-) If someone has an answer, i will 
contribute for such a proposal.

Unfortunately, adoption is entirely different from depletion. Depletion 
is caused by high usage. The need to encourage the adoption of a 
technology results from low usage.


> Rest is personal opinion and from my point of view any conservative 
> policy will only last the pain longer.

Markets are already in place.
The "pain" will survive the total exhaustion point in this region, 
unfortunately. And this is obviously a personal opinion, but you 
will also see an increased usage of CGN -- which 2017-03 also is NOT 
addressing.


Thanks,
Carlos


> thank you
> regards
> Riccardo
> 
> 
> 
> Il 24/09/2017 15:09, Carlos Friaças ha scritto:
>
>       Hi Riccardo, All,
>
>       Thanks for your input.
>
>       Please see inline.
> 
>
>       On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Riccardo Gori wrote:
>
>             Dear all,
>
>             I started as an ISP early 2015 and I still consider myself a new entrant.
> 
>
>       That's not my definition for "new entrant". Strictly i consider a new entrant as an organization which doesn't own any IPv4 or IPv6 address space.
>       Loosely, it can be a new LIR (before getting its /22 and an IPv6 block under current policy)...
>
>       But, luckly the community approved a policy for the last /8 long before 2015. If that didn't happen, your only solution would have been to rely on the
>       market.
> 
>
>             In the last 2 years I heard about a couple of time "no more IPv4 policies let's go over and think how to fix/help IPv6 rate adoption" but
>             today we are still here complaining what's the best way to last longer with the agony.
> 
>
>       Is "no more IPv4 policies" written in stone somewhere? :-)
>
>       Fix IPv6 rate adoption by policy?
>       Let's call our countries' telecom regulators, and ask for a policy that prohibits IPv4 usage from day X onwards? -- i don't think so...........
> 
>
>             For Ipv6 RIPE NCC is doing its best with training and is really appreciated
> 
>
>       +1 on that!
> 
>
>             and I learned here that we tend to not mix IPv4/6 policies but I really expected incentives from the cummunity not obstacles. The "IPv6
>             Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8" was abandoned 23/10/2014 by the adoption of 2014-04 proposal
> 
>
>       Looking back now, was that a good decision...?
> 
>
>             while this 2017-03 proposal aims to last as longer as possible with IPv4.
> 
>
>       Should we tweak it, and make it more "stricter", in a way the address space is (automatically?) returned if it's not being used in v4/v6 translation
>       mechanisms...? (and do we have means to check that?)
> 
> 
>
>             Looks to me that we are trying to save future generation from ice melting saving oil tanks instead of working on research and incentives to
>             clean energies.
> 
>
>       Incentives cost money -- taxpayers' or consumers' money (or both!)
> 
>
>             I don't see even any reason to save more address space than the current policies does 'casue we have "trasfert policies"
> 
>
>       Transfers of last /8 slices are still allowed after 24 months -- should that possibility end...? (2017-03 v1.0 doesn't address transfers)
> 
>
>             for almost any kind of IP resource and if there are some restrictions on new allocation there are more flexible for legacy space.
> 
>
>       The RIPE community (through the NCC) only provides services to legacy space holders (and there was a proprosal for that... 2012-07).
>       The RIPE community is not able to design policies regarding address space which was distributed before the NCC's creation.
> 
> 
>
>             Today you can simply choose to go RIPE or market as your feeling to get IPv4/6 if needed.
> 
>
>       If the choice is going to the "market" (and if you are in strict sense a new entrant), the "market" will not advocate you should use/deploy IPv6.
>       On the other hand, if the choice is becoming a LIR, you will get that... :-)
> 
> 
>
>             My small router deals today with more than 2.5 million routes (2 full routing tables and some IX) and it really takes time to backup and
>             even routing performance are affected by volume of routes. I think we should propote IPv6 for route aggregation ability.
> 
>
>       There is also de-aggregation in IPv6-land. :-(
>       (http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/)
>       People will mess up routing as the rest of the world lets them...
> 
>
>             I see this policy as:
>             - an obstacle to IPv6
> 
>
>       That was not the goal. The goal was to extend v4 availability for some more time, thus making life easier for IPv6 deployments that will still need to
>       talk with the v4 world.
> 
>
>             - a clear side effect of market price rise on IPv4
> 
>
>       This proposal is not about the "market". a /24 can cost X, Y or Z over time. The only way we can keep "affordability" for new entrants is by defining
>       what they get from the NCC, not from any 3rd party.
> 
> 
>
>             - a disincentive to route aggregation
> 
>
>       I don't agree. /22s (and bigger chunks) are already being announced as /24s. What we consider is that keeping the "affordability" for new entrants is a
>       bigger priority than keeping the DFZ on 683k (today) instead of 725k, 750k or even 800k routes. I know 800k routes looks insane, but two years ago 683k
>       would have been equally insane :-))
>
>       ps: On 24-09-2015 (two years ago), 572876 routes
>       https://web.archive.org/web/20150924225101/https://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/
> 
>
>       Thanks!
> 
>
>       Best Regards,
>       Carlos Friaças
> 
>
>             That's why I oppose this policy
>             kind regards
>             Riccardo
>
>             --
>             Riccardo Gori
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Ing. Riccardo Gori
> e-mail: rgori at wirem.net
> Italia:  +39 339 89 25 947
> España:  +34 660 11 59 89
> Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943
> [logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg]
> 
> 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)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>