[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

Hi,

Re: 'who does IPv6 hoarding really hurt' or 'what's the danger', we should
learn from some very harsh real-life lessons that happened with IPv4
stockpiling.

- when IPv4 was plentiful, a number of RIPE members we able to hoard vast
volumes of IPv4 and distribute large IPv4 network prefixes (e.g. full /18s)
to their customers but provide little to no technical services (became de
facto local RIRs)
- this was attractive to their customers at the time - often network
operators - because the RIPE members would lease the address space for a
much lower price than a RIPE NCC membership fee
- as their customers became increasingly dependant on those IPv4 network
prefixes over time to run their operations, the RIPE members abused their
power and raised the lease costs to absolute extortionate and unaffordable
amounts - often to sell the parent allocation on the IPv4 market

This is in addition to conflicting with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy, and
reducing the RIPE NCC's ability to check and verify that the address space
is being used in line with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy.

Do we really want to sleepwalk into a similar situation with IPv6? If not,
how can we proactively safeguard IPv6 from such abuse while ensuring easy
access to IPv6 for real deployments? Change IPv6 transfer policy, and/or
lower the RIPE NCC membership fee (e.g. a cheaper IPv6-only membership
category)?


Regards,
James
apwg co-chair
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20211123/18b38637/attachment.html>