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

I totally agree with Riccardo, I oppose to this policy as it could cause 
visibility/performance issues as lot of ISPs are filtering /24s.

In my opinion, this problem will never be solved unless using IPv4 will 
become financially unattractive: I can't see why LIRs owning tons of 
/16s should start using IPv6. To me, an equal and fair solution would be 
to make RIPE annual fee dependant on currently owned IPv4 allocations. 
It's pretty obvious that the majority of LIRs owns more than just a /22 
and won't never approve that.

Br

Il 24/09/2017 11:48, Riccardo Gori ha scritto:
> 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