[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

+1

 

We may need to consider if it is right that the remains of IPv4 can be allocated to new LIRs from existing members instead to only new-entrants. I think the community must be fairer. This is the way handled in other RIRs as well (not all them).

 

If the problem with IPv6 is that the justification is harder to get more than /29, one possible approach is to clarify it, not neccesarilly with a policy change but guidelines, etc.  Note that I don’t think that’s the case, I really believe if you need more than /29, it is possible to justify it, but may be people believe that it is easier to artificially create multiple LIRs and get a /29 for each one. This is something that only the staff can tell. As much info as we have about why this happens, easier to find possible avenues for a better solution.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 23/11/21 13:26, "address-policy-wg en nombre de James Kennedy" <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de jameskennedy001 at gmail.com> escribió:

 

[changed mail client alias\author to my name, apologies for duplication] 

 

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 

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20211124/13b34652/attachment.html>