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

Dear AP-WG,

I Oppose this 2017-03 proposal,

IPv6 has been around for decades, and "we" have failed to implement it in time. I see no point in rewarding laziness and yet trying to again give more time to seriously start to implement v6. The more time we are given, the more time it will take, that’s how we have done it in the past, and I don’t see the laziness go if not forced to. Warnings were ignored, we (v6 advocates) were laughed at, "again it will end", " you’ve told us that many years". Even if we only hand out a /28, we still have the basic problem, and it won't go away v4 WILL run out. Don’t make the suffering any longer.

Rgds,

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Palumbo Flavio
Sent: 22. syyskuuta 2017 11:17
To: Daniel Suchy <danny at danysek.cz>; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] R: 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

I don't see TOO any problem in reduction of initial (minimal) IPv4 allocation. So i support this idea TOO .

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Per conto di Daniel Suchy
Inviato: venerdì 22 settembre 2017 10:09
A: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Oggetto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hello,
/24 is de-facto standard accepted in routing tables these days and also
/24 was used in large scale during PI assignments - so I don't see any problem in reduction of initial (minimal) IPv4 allocation. So i support this idea.

But I would like to keep option for asking more than /24 (up to /22 maximum, as was decided in the past) LIRs eligible for allocation, if LIR properly documents his request.

From my own practice there're some LIR, where /24 is sufficient and they just become LIRs because there's no other real option to get independent addresses (old "PI") and with /22 we're just wasting limited resource.
But there're also LIRs, where /22 will actively used.

I don't see any problems in terms of RFC 2050 mentioned here and memory contraints, providers had to upgrade their routers in meantime anyway (at least due to IPv6 adoption). Fragmentation up to /24 is long-term reality and we had to deal with it anyway.

With regards,
Daniel


On 09/21/2017 01:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-03, "Reducing Initial IPv4
> Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space", is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by
> the RIPE NCC to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not
> received an IPv4 allocation directly from the RIPE NCC before.
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03/
>
> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this
> four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
>
> At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement
> of the RIPE Working Group Chairs, decides how to proceed with the proposal.
>
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 20 October 2017.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>


Check Point
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e in ogni
eventuale documento allegato sono riservate, potrebbero essere coperte dal
segreto professionale e possono essere utilizzate esclusivamente dal
destinatario sopra indicato. Ogni divulgazione o copia di questo messaggio o
dei suoi eventuali allegati non autorizzata, cosi' come ogni uso o
divulgazione delle informazioni negli stessi contenute, sono da considerarsi
come vietate e potrebbero costituire violazione delle normative ivi
applicabili. Se ricevete questo messaggio per errore Vi preghiamo di
volerci avvertire immediatamente tramite posta elettronica o telefonicamente
e di cancellare il presente messaggio e ogni documento ad esso allegato dal
Vostro sistema. Vi informiamo che svolgiamo ogni attivita' finalizzata a
proteggere la nostra rete da virus e non ci assumiamo alcuna responsabilita'
in ordine a possibili virus che possano essere trasferiti con la presente mail.
Grazie.

*****************

The information contained in this e-mail and in any file transmitted with it
is confidential and may be privileged for the sole use of the designated
addressee. Any unauthorized dissemination or copying of this e-mail or its
attachments, and any use or disclosure of any information contained in them,
is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you are not the designated
addressee, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone
and delete this e-mail and any file transmitted with it from your system.
We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses and take no
responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this
e-mail.
Thank you.