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

Hi,


On Sat, 30 Sep 2017, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

> 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.

Do you mean people need to agree or disagree with what is _not_ in this 
proposal?



>>> 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.

No need to go into "insult-mode".
I was merely suggesting new proposals are always a possibility.


> 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.

Yes, needs-based checks will not work.
But i'm probably missing something: current status is everyone gets one 
last /22 with no questions asked; the proposal aims to change that into a 
/24, still with no questions asked. Unless i'm not seeing something, 
the proposal doesn't really try to (re-)introduce needs-base checks.


> There is also the issue of what should happen with those not respecting
> the policies.

Address space returning to RIPE's pool...?


> Right now we seem to be in a situation where we have laws
> but no police.

There is no procedure that allows someone to identify something strange 
and then report it to the NCC, so they can evaluate it?

I've googled a bit, and found this... https://www.ripe.net/report-form
Never used it, though :-)


> Should we continue on that direction (more laws, still no
> police)

2017-03, is not about a new "rule". It's about changing an existing rule.


> 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) ?

I don't believe in "no rules". Otherwise, i wouldn't be co-authoring a 
policy proposal :-)


>> 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.

First step is to build it, then search for its approval.
And yes, the PDP doesn't work by just snapping fingers :-)


>> 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 ...... :)

There is a lot of input already. But let's see how it goes.


Cheers,
Carlos


> -- 
> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
>