[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Hi,

>I think that I speak for the WG, that the intent for the final /8 policy
and the waitinglist policy, is to provide IPv4 (at least a small bit) to
newcomers .. meaning that how it currently works and how it was >intended
.. that this might not align with what the WG initially wanted.

A newcomer can still apply to get an /24 with the current policy, being in
a waiting list means you need to wait (it aligns with the current policy).
there was no intention to have a fast track or a definite waiting period to
get the /24.
If a newcomer needs IPv4 urgently they can request an existing member to
transfer IP address to them, looking at transfer statistics we can see that
there are many v4 transfers happening every month.


Maybe better to find a way to push old members to return their free IPv4
blocks to have more free IP in the pool? This can be done by a change to
the current billing method but that needs to be decided by NCC members, not
the WG.

Regards,

Arash






On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 1:29 AM Erik Bais <erik at bais.name> wrote:

> Hi Marco,
>
> Thank you for the detailed information of the dispersion about the current
> and past of the waitinglist.
>
> To the WG:
>
> The current workings of the IPv4 Waitinglist is specified in the IPv4
> Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region
>
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#5
>
> Currently there is a First Come First Serve procedure for the waitinglist
> .. and there are no limitation to allocating v4 space to members that have
> been already allocated v4 space since the waitinglist started.
>
> I think that I speak for the WG, that the intent for the final /8 policy
> and the waitinglist policy, is to provide IPv4 (at least a small bit) to
> newcomers .. meaning that how it currently works and how it was intended ..
> that this might not align with what the WG initially wanted.
>
> If a change would be desired by the WG, it should go through the PDP,
> meaning that a policy change would be required.
>
> As WG chairs we would like to see the position of the WG on the topic and
> what could be seen as a possible solution.
>
> Regards,
> Erik Bais
> On behalf of the AP-WG Co-Chair collective.
>
>
>
> On 07/12/2021, 10:23, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Marco Schmidt" <
> address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote:
>
>     Dear colleagues,
>
>     In the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 83, I shared our
>     observations regarding the IPv4 waiting list policy. [1]
>
>     The intent of this policy was to provide newcomers with a minimal
> amount
>     of IPv4 space for as long as possible. However, about half of these
>     allocations went to members that received several /24 allocations via
>     multiple LIR accounts.
>
>     As there was interest in reviewing the policy at the RIPE Meeting, I
>     would like to provide more detail on the provision of IPv4 allocations
>     over the last two years and the current situation with the waiting
> list.
>
>     In the last 24 months, we provided 4,178 LIRs with a /24 allocation:
>     -    2,019 allocations (48%) went to members with a single LIR account
>     -    452 allocations (11%) went to members with 2-4 LIR accounts
>     -    298 allocations (7%) went to members with 5-9 LIR accounts and
>     -    1,409 allocations (34%) went to members with 10 or more LIR
>     accounts (up to 33 /24 allocations to a single member)
>
>     This trend towards allocations to multiple LIR accounts has
> accelerated
>     in the past six months. Between June and November 2021, only 24% of
>     allocations went to members with a single LIR account, while 54% went
> to
>     members with 10 or more accounts.
>
>     We see the same trend with the current waiting list. At the time of
>     writing, we can see 327 requests for a /24 allocation:
>     -    83 (25%) are from members with a single LIR account
>     -    42 (13%) are from members with 2-4 LIRs accounts
>     -    45 (14%) are from members with 5-9 LIR accounts
>     -    157 (48%) are from members with 10 or more LIR accounts
>
>     Consequently, there is a significantly longer wait time for members
> with
>     a single LIR account.
>
>     Looking at the current market prices for IPv4 in comparison to our
>     membership fees, even a wait time of several months is acceptable for
>     organisations that plan to transfer their allocation after the end of
>     the holding period. Conversely, the long wait time will create
>     uncertainty for real newcomers, especially if they can’t rely on
>     IPv6-only networks.
>
>     I hope the WG finds this information useful for further discussion. If
>     there is consensus to change the current situation, there are several
>     approaches available – including a review of the waiting list policy
> and
>     changing ‘per LIR’ to something else. Other approaches, such as a
>     different charging scheme or changing the concept of multiple LIRs
> would
>     need to be approved by the RIPE NCC membership.
>
>     Kind regards,
>     Marco Schmidt
>     Assistant Manager Registry Services
>     RIPE NCC
>
>     [1] https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/642/
>
>
>     --
>
>     To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or
> change your subscription options, please visit:
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change
> your subscription options, please visit:
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20211208/40ba5814/attachment.html>