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

Hi,

am 24.09.2017 um 04:58 schrieb Randy Bush:
>
>> The only use case RIPE NCC should assign new IPv4 address space for is
>> for documented and needed v6 transitions services
> do not make rules you can not measure or enforce.  it weakens the
> credibility of the rest of the structure.

It's quote common that you need to hand in a kind-of detailed network plan for larger deployments. As part of a revised last /8 policy, a detailed plan for using the requested (not: granted because you're a new LIR) v4 space for transition services can be requested, including evidence for it's deployment within 12 weeks. Yes, "evidence" can be faked. Does faking information currently serves as a breach of contractual obligations by the LIR, opening LIR termination? If not, there's some homework to do.

Handing out, say, /28 instead of /24 would spoil this space for any trading. Yes, the route: needs to be on /24 level, but by having a route: entry of the /24 on AS3333 (or, maybe better, some designated "last /8 control ASN") means no other route: entry can be made without active involvement of RIPE NCC. This can be tracked, and the routing AS changes limited to 1 within 24 months. Usage beyond the assigned /28 boundary could be checked as well (RIPE ATLAS or a bunch of AWS instances, fired up randomly).

I don't say it's easy. I don't say I like the idea. But I think it's doable and that an upcoming strict "v4 for v6 deployments only" policy is enforcable.

The argument pro 2017-03 is "we need to conserve v4 space for those that come late to the show (in 3 to x0 years) and need to connect to github.com, amazon.com or other dinosaurs still on v4-only via transition techniques". Well, anything except an all-in to me is just for raising the per-/24 market price. Unless we poison the upcoming assignments – (strictly?) no transfer, no generic use (yes, this is difficult to "measure and enforce"; nonetheless, a legal phrase of the intended use should be possible and added), assignment way below routing threshold, strong control by RIPE NCC –, those *will* end up in the "v4 after market". In essence, RIPE NCC would "lease" the v4 addresses to these LIRs, not anymore "assign" them.

Radical? Maybe. Necessary? To conserve as much v4 space for "anyone coming late", I think so.

Regards,
-kai