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

Moin,

am 24.09.2017 um 09:31 schrieb Daniel Suchy:
> 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.

Please don't get me started on that ...

For the time being, assume I runa business and am a LIR already, and a
customer who needs 2 /24 for his more-than-awesome service. Will I direct
himto competitors that got /16s in the past, or will I opt for another LIR
undercurrect policy, calculate that cost and present him with that bill?

If all costs (another company, another LIR, etc.) are covered, why would
I reject the deal?

> 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.

Oh, they did, back then. That's the whole PA vs. PI thing[1], starting
somewhere around 194/8or back, in the early 1990s. The idea was to
assign huge amounts of address space to an LIR in the expectation it
would be routed coherently. Didn't work in 194/8 due to lack of
contractual clearance, IIRC 195/8 was the first "safe to filter" prefix?
PI space back then was supplied from another netblock (193/8?), so
filtering could be applied easily.

But sometime later, a generic /24 filter was applied, and that's where
we are today, AFAIK.

> 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".

No.A LIR is supposed to hand out addresses to customers based on customer
needs (and contractual obligations to RIPE NCC). Shelling out a once-in-
your-lifetime /22 prefix just makes sense, if this is an "old-school" LIR.
It would typically use a /24 (routing threshold) for itself (www, mx), and
seek for customers for the remainding 3 /24.

Even if the company's legal entity has no use for v4, v4 address space does
have a finacial value these days, so failure to secure that could be a
punishable offence.

> Alocating /24 to new LIRs with keeping possibility to earn up to /22 (in
> case of documented need) is solution in my eyes.

As stated elsewhere:anyone will be able to present "documented need" for
the /22 ... so this is a moot point.

Regards,
-kai

[1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-509#----pa-vs--pi-address-space