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

Dear all,

I started as an ISP early 2015 and I still consider myself a new 
entrant. 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.

For Ipv6 RIPE NCC is doing its best with training and is really 
appreciated 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 while this 2017-03 
proposal aims to last as longer as possible with IPv4. 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.

I don't see even any reason to save more address space than the current 
policies does 'casue we have "trasfert policies" for almost any kind of 
IP resource and if there are some restrictions on new allocation there 
are more flexible for legacy space. Today you can simply choose to go 
RIPE or market as your feeling to get IPv4/6 if needed.

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.

I see this policy as:
- an obstacle to IPv6
- a clear side effect of market price rise on IPv4
- a disincentive to route aggregation

That's why I oppose this policy
kind regards
Riccardo

--
Riccardo Gori