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

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017, at 13:21, Carlos Friaças wrote:
> > - forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already,
> > and possibility to make things even worse (by creating new pretext for
> > "longer than /24 in GRT").
> 
> Any prefix can be split into /24s and still remain globally routable.
> 
> Going beyond /24 is really not in this proposal. A new proposal would be 
> needed for that...

The issue is not with what it's in the proposal, the issue is the
consequences, direct or indirect. 

> > I would also add some other reasons:
> > - community's duty/responsibility for future generations : apart what
> > it has already been discussed (get v4 on the market, get it from
> > upstream, or even "really need to get v4 ?"), we are representing here
> > the RIP*E* community, with limited geographical scope. However, the
> > policy is quite lax at the moment concerning the out-of-region use of
> > resources, basically allowing an out-of-region entity to get resources
> > with a sole promise to use *some* of them in-continent.
> 
> If you disagree with the current "lax" status, why not build a new 
> proposal? We don't need to address everything with just one proposal...

This a simplist (almost childish) answer to a more complex issue. Even
if we start with only the "out-of-region" issue, we will quickly get
into the needs-based check, which I have been explained several times by
several people that it can no longer work in RIPE-land.

There is also the issue of what should happen with those not respecting
the policies. Right now we seem to be in a situation where we have laws
but no police. Should we continue on that direction (more laws, still no
police) or should we just remove the root cause for breaking the law
(removing the law may also be an option - even if not really the best) ?

> It's a valid viewpoint. I would also agree with "less lax", but that
> would be a different proposal.

I would support such a proposal, but I doubt that it will have the
expected effect in the short-medium term.

> I can also agree with that, but it's just a matter of sizing it. If v2.0, 
> v3.0, v4.0, ... is eventually approved/adopted, it may be that there
> isn't a /12 to do this anymore...
> So, we really didn't focus in the task of establishing 
> barriers/boundaries. But we might consider this for v2.0, if it helps. :-)

So I'll wait a "better" v2.0 .... or v3.0, or v4.0 ...... :)


-- 
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN