[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Dear colleagues,

While it is really interesting to see that the waiting list is primarily
used as a means of extension for existing LIRs, it would be rather
more interesting to look at the current size of the respective LIRs. It
makes a lot of sense for a small LIR holding a single /24 to open a second
and request a secondary /24. Effectively, holding a /23 worth of IPv4 space
is still negligible in comparison to some of our fellow LIRs holding a
trifold of that.

It seems a countermeasure to restrict every single new /24 allocation in
terms of a transfer. It will only prevent new colleagues in order for them
to grow and excel in their various new concepts. I would personally
strongly advocate restrictions, but only for those who already ‘hold a
lot’. It is simply unfair to limit new entrepreneurs in their ventures by
throwing monetary bars that hold them back in potential growth. This will
only really benefit the bigger colleagues among us, as the new small ‘fish’
are unable to compete because they lack resources to deliver a proper
alternative.

As such, I would rather propose a maximum amount of /24s (through new
memberships) to be requested through the current waiting list policy by a
single entity in a given time frame. It is not unrealistic to limit this at
a single /24 per e.g. six months. This would result throwing the
real ‘hoarders’ under the bus, by not facilitating their hunger for
obtaining IPv4 ‘at the cheap’, while still allowing ‘legitimate’ new
members to grow by allocating them the resources they need.

Also, let’s not forget that while the IPv4 waiting list hands out IPv4 from
the RIPE NCC ‘free’ pool, the amount of IPv4 that is recovered is
very limited and will probably be even more limited in the foreseeable
future. It would make a lot more sense to push at recovering more space,
that can than be handed to new colleagues in a more fair, somewhat more
restrictive way. Just by looking at some public looking glasses, I can
find examples of hobbyist / amateur associations that hold a /16, while it
seems not nearly a quarter of that is in active use.

While it has been rejected a lot of times before, and another shot at it
likely won’t make a difference, the real way to recover IPv4 space, seems
to be by putting monetary sanctions on free space. Think of this in terms
of changing the way the RIPE NCC does their billing. At current,
every single LIR, no matter its size, pays the same contribution towards
our association. This policy does NOT push fellow members into
returning space they no longer need, or won’t need in the foreseeable
future, as holding it does not cost anything. When replacing the current
billing scheme into a more flexible billing scheme where each individual
IPv4 held can and will be billed, the organisations that do not need the
space will return the free space. After all: why pay for resources that you
do not need, and won’t need?

Of course, for smaller LIRs, this impact won’t be significant. But picture
a LIR holding several /16s, of which only a couple of /24 prefixes are
in active use? At a small fee of say 10 euro cents per IPv4 address,
returning half of a /16, would mean an annual reduction of costs by 6K.
Such amount is not that significant, but big enough to push smaller LIRs
that hold such an amount of unused space, to return the unused parts. Such
a policy could free up a lot of unused space that can then be redistributed
to our new colleagues through a more restrictive waiting list mechanism.

In this current discussion, some of our fellow colleagues have a tendency
to ignore identifying a problem, because they believe IPv4 will ‘die’ on
a short term. Let’s face it: at current, a proper hosting service cannot be
delivered without IPv4. Of course, there is a steady growth to be
identified in global IPv6 usage, this does not mean we can simply have new
colleagues ‘wait’ another ten years or so before their IPv6-only services
can be seen as mature enough for production use.

To wrap up my argument: the sole way of resolving this matter is by having
the older LIRs be lenient enough to help recover space by returning it, and
redistributing it in a fair manner. It is often said that. The current
‘guild’ of network engineers like to see the next generation grow up,
and show interest in their very interesting field. I, myself, at the young
age of 21, identify myself as such. But without any leniency from their end
to help give everyone a fair chance at starting their own online ventures,
by means of allocating at least the most essential resources for them to
get going, this will only get harder and harder in the years to come.

Yes, my stance will generate a lot of resistance, I am sure, by exactly the
group I mentioned that will in this matter show a lack of lenience.
But please, all, let’s take a stance that is serious and will help us all
along in times of the ‘real-real-real’ scarce of IPv4 in our service
region.

Regards,
Rick Bakker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20211208/84dcc9c5/attachment.html>