[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Taras Heichenko wrote:

(...)
> All that you added is derived from "obtain IPs". Of course you are right but until you get IPs you
> do not need AS, RPKI and so on. Training may be useful without IPs but you can find a way
> to go to training without LIR status.

Yes, but addresses can also be obtained from "the market", and maintenance 
will be required anyway...

Oh, and you can get IPv6 addressing also!


(...)
>> Don't forget about "keeping it". If you only pay on the 1st year, the resources go back into the pool (de-registered) if the 2nd year is not payed... it's called "maintenance". :-)
>
> You must obtain IPs at first. All your answer is built on assumption that organization already
> has some IPs. Of course in this case it will pay annual fee for all service. But we talk about
> new LIR. I came to RIPE NCC to get IPs. RIPE NCC is telling me: We put you in waitlist and
> may be later you will get /24. But to get to the waitlist I must pay now 1400 (of course euros
> not $ as I mistype in previous letter). I pay 1400 euros annually for the right to be in the waitlist.

Sounds a bit expensive, yes, i agree. Stock market futures come to mind.

But if you can't get space immediately from the NCC, some brokers will 
certainly help you (for their right price...), and you can associate the 
space you buy with your new fresh LIR -- and still be on the waitlist (if 
i'm not wrong)!


>>> It has not these
>>> addresses and his/her busyness will suffer from lack of IPv4 addresses. As for me in this case I
>>> would not wait IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC. Either I make busyness only on IPv6 or I buy IPv4
>>> addresses on the market (after this I cannot claim to get addresses from RIPE NCC, right?).
>>
>> My interpretation is that you could. Currently, a /22 per LIR account...
>
> I hope someone who take decision will answer. Would new LIR have right on the block from RIPE NCC
> if it had bought some IPv4 from the market?

Even if the answer now is "No.", i believe that could eventually be 
changed by a new policy proposal into "Yes.". If this is the case i would 
support such proposal.


Regards,
Carlos