[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Hi Guys

I am doing some analysis on recent allocations using a variety of
public data. I have some questions some of you may be able to help me
with.

-What was the policy in 2019 regarding /22 allocations? Was it a free for all?

-When was the waiting list implemented?

-when was the allocation size dropped to /24?

-The companies/LIRs I have been looking at, I see lots of /22
allocations in 2019 and lots of /24 allocations in 2021, but nothing
allocated to them in 2020. What happened last year? Maybe it is a
coincidence that these random companies made no applications last
year. But given the extent to which they were grabbing address space
in 2019 and 2021, it seems odd they did nothing last year.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 01:32, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
>
> Mathias Westerlund wrote on 12/12/2021 07:50:
> > I realize it is not an easy thing to solve.
> > I also both feel and understand that something needs to be done due to
> > the situation at hand.
>
> this situation can't be solved: it can only be managed.  There's a
> unresolvable high demand for number resources, and an unresolvable
> shortage of supply.
>
> The challenge is to work out what categories of problems we can live
> with, and then devise policies to implement that.  This is how the
> current policies came into existence.
>
> In regard to creating new policies or updating current ones:
>
> - the ultimate aim is accurate registration of resources
>
> - there is reluctance on the part of RIRs to deregister previously
> allocated number resources except in cases of contractual default
>
> - due to the high perceived value of ipv4 address resources, reclaiming
> addresses due to contractual default is likely to slow down in future
>
> - the greater the difference between supply and demand, the higher the
> price on the open market, and the more this will hurt organisations who
> need ip addresses, and the more demand there will be to change the rules
> to something else.
>
> - "new entrant" companies can be created simply and quickly (i.e.
> prioritising "new entrants" will create more avenues to abuse the
> registration system).
>
> - increasing the price of registration of addresses solves some problems
> but creates others
>
> - the RIR cannot make a value judgement about whose legitimate need for
> IP addresses is more important
>
> - some people will try hard to cheat the system, and some will succeed
>
> - whatever policy is implemented, it needs to be applied fairly and
> rigorously
>
> - the policies and implementations need to be compliant with local and
> regional laws / regulations
>
> The intersection of these constraints rules out many options for
> creating new policies.
>
> Nick
>
>
> > The problem is that many of the solutions i would think of may include
> > administration overhead, but i guess i will put forward two maybe three
> > ideas.
> >
> > The first and easiest but that will not satisfy everyone is the most
> > obvious one.
> > Only allow new members to procure from the waiting list and make the
> > addresses nontransferable.
> >
> > This would in my opinion be a stop gap for a bigger solution because we
> > cannot go ahead and block legitimate business needs for larger entities
> > just because of newcomers like myself.
> > However that ties into my second more realistic approach of what might
> > be accepted but also requires some changes on the administration.
> >
> > How about simply having a split queue system?
> > New members with single LIR goes to the front of the line and gets an
> > nontransferable address.
> > Others will according to their number of existing LIRs or ranges go to
> > the back of the line according to their current ownership where an
> > legitimate need for more ranges constitutes an expected revenue across
> > said ranges and as such the bigger expectancy of acquiring larger ranges
> > via an market otherwise said ranges are not being utilized properly (i
> > understand the existence of non profits and edge cases but not everyone
> > can be 100% satisfied, neither can i with this in the future)
> > Make an buffer that is not possible to be allocated to multi LIRs/multi
> > range holders.
> > I am not an old member enough to have good insight to where a good
> > buffer would be but for arguments sake i would say 100.
> >
> > This means that there is supposed to be 100 /24 ranges available (Could
> > be 20 or 30 or anything RIPE agrees on) and as long as there is, the
> > "Multi holder Queue" would be able to request ranges against
> > motivational uses.
> >
> > There could even be a third queue at say 250 ranges available where all
> > the ranges above that goes to open market against the requirement that
> > they become used within x time and if they are to be resold they have to
> > be resold/rented out at fair pricing. This could be 25,50 or whatever, i
> > don't have the insight yet on how often ranges are allocated to give an
> > accurate number and will not pretend as such either.
> >
> > This would guarantee that the original spirit of the /24's for newcomers
> > idea is retained, while adopting to the wishes of the larger members as
> > well to a degree, I fully understand that there are some really really
> > big entities out there with big needs for IPv4 still and i don't want to
> > block them in any way shape or form because i one day hope to be able to
> > make use of our ranges and services to become on of the really big
> > players, with the benefit of being such a new player that i can already
> > today build IPv6 native and just use IPv4 for the still required things
> > and then hopefully phase out IPv4 and return our ranges down the road.
> >
> > We today have as i mentioned earlier an single IPv4 /24 available for
> > our older WISP/MSP datacenter, It was acquired from an entity called
> > Resilans (If mentioning other entities by name is not allowed i
> > apologize) they also helped us with the process of becoming an LIR and
> > ripe member so we are VERY grateful to them as even tho they did charge
> > for their time, it was a fair price and we would not be here today
> > without them.
> >
> > Entities like them are in my opinion fair and could benefit from the
> > third queue where they did price fairly against us and didnt try to
> > gouge us like other entities that have contacted us after we became
> > members (some asked for outrageous prices for a single /24)
> > They also provide the ability for non members that cannot become members
> > for some reason to acquire IPs for their business, such as it was for us
> > back then. We didn't have any multi-homing ability which we now will
> > with Datacenter 2 (Which is our fiber ISP location) and our L2 link
> > between them. So we didn't even qualify until recently and we also
> > didn't feel we could justify for our then VERY small operations being an
> > LIR and the administration around that, there are others like us out
> > there and for them an resell/second hand renting market of IPv4 is very
> > beneficial
> >
> > We all know IPv4 is a sinking ship and we implement stop gaps such as
> > NAT and then CGNAT to try and prolong its inevitable doom, but until
> > that day comes i hope that my understanding of RIPE so far is accurate
> > where you.. Us all try to make the playing field as equal as possible
> > without hindering each others opportunities.
> >
> > Sorry for the mile long message but this is in my opinion one of several
> > potential ways to do this down the road that might help in some way.
> >
> > I would also like to put out there the idea of presenting the number of
> > ranges in store on the LIR waiting list graph, it would serve two purposes.
> >
> > It would allow small entities like us that when there is a 0 waiting
> > line to have an understanding of how soon there might be a queue again
> > so we can plan our potential entry as an LIR. I actually held off on us
> > being an LIR because we had so much else to prepare and get in place for
> > our new venture, if i would have seen the graph rapidly declining i
> > would have tried to become one sooner and perhaps been able to grab one
> > prior to the member days rather than come in 5 days after the waiting
> > list shot up.
> >
> > The second benefit would also be to drive home the acute situation to
> > everyone and perhaps open up for more understanding for the smaller
> > entities out there that have to rely on this service to get IPv4 other
> > than turning to in some cases heavily overpriced addresses.
> >
> > One last thing before i end this already too long rant.
> > Thank you all so far for not only actually listening to a newcomers rant
> > about our opinion, but also truly showing to us that you really care
> > about our opinion and input. We cant wait to be able to bring back and
> > contribute to this community and hopefully prove our self worthy of the
> > time and consideration shown so far.
> >
> > Very warm regards, Mathias W
> > CEO and Infrastructure Architect - West digital Management AB.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:58 AM Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl
> > <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Mathias,
> >
> >      > I will be quite frank about this and say that it feel very
> >     disheartening to essentially miss the 0 day queue allocations by 5
> >     days. end up in a one month long quque that just grows with no more
> >     allocations and on top of that it is VERY obvious that these
> >     organisations uses the members list as a "To be customers" base
> >     because about 4 hours after we became members we got mails and
> >     phonecalls from about 5 different companies stating they want to
> >     sell us IP adresses.
> >      >
> >      > It just feels like this is not what RIPE was intended for but
> >     obviously is being used for.
> >      >
> >      > I apologize if i am sounding too salty or if my mail is not
> >     according to well established RIPE etiquette, and dont get me wrong.
> >     we are VERY happy about being a new member with a single LIR and
> >     getting our own IPv6 and insight into the future of the internet,
> >     just felt that i should give the point of view of exactly one of
> >     those "Small new one lir members" that many here reffer to and
> >     exactly how our experience with this issue has been..
> >
> >     Don't worry, you talk about your frustration quite politely :)  And
> >     it is totally justified. This is why I think something needs to be
> >     done now. Yes, it's rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, but some
> >     people are still trying to survive.
> >
> >     As a new member, what do you think about these ideas? Would it be
> >     good to make addresses untransferable? Or keep them transferable but
> >     ask the NCC to impose a one-time merger&acquisition fee? Or any
> >     other way? What would be ok for your real internet business but not
> >     for address sellers?
> >
> >     Cheers,
> >     Sander
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/