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

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Arash Naderpour wrote:

> Hi Daniel,

Hi,


>> you still pay only *membership* fee. It's not a per-IP cost, even if it can look like that. Old resource holders pays similar fee independently from number of IP addresses they hold.
>
> RIPE NCC members can change this charging scheme, right? It was not like this always...

You are correct: RIPE NCC members. This group is not a perfect match
with the community that discusses and builds up policies :-)


>> One of goals is *conservation*, and initial assignment of /24 helps with that - and not each new LIR really needs /22. There're lot of organisationss having single /24 (old PI allocations) from the past and they're still happy with that. These were allocated to end users, are routed and also nobody concerned about routing table size. Since posibility of  PI alocations was ceased, new organisations have to become "full LIR" - and then you receive /22, automatically - even you don't need it. We're simply wasting limited addres space here - just because something "simplified" and "automated".
>
> An org will not be limited to /24 even with this proposal; they can 
> open additional LIRs to get more.

Yes, 2017-03 v1.0 doesn't try to limit that -- if i understood correctly, 
some people disagree, and think it should.


> Or register a new business if RIPE NCC bans multi LIR again.

I guess only the RIPE NCC GA can do that, not RIPE NCC itself.


> It is not easy to say that we are wasting limited address space by 
> allocating /22, the ones need less than an /22 can transfer their free 
> blocks to others who are in need  (even new entrants)

in need, or not (if they are only trying to stockpile for later...)


> after two years or lease them immediately.

Yes... that's current policy, and 2017-03 doesn't touch that.



> Maybe there are some LIRs don?t  fully utilize their /22 as soon as 
> they receive the allocation, but what about the ones got their 
> allocations before last /8 policy, are they all fully used?

Of course not.


> The actual wasting was done somewhere else years ago, and nobody cares 
> about that now.

There is also the issue with "refurbished" address space... apart from the 
issue that IPv4 address space now has value, so creating a new rule/policy 
to "extract" it frow its current owners is quite inimaginable... :-)


Regards,
Carlos Friaças


> Regards,
>
> Arash