<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi Sander, thank you for your answer <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 12/05/2016 14:16, Sander Steffann ha scritto: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:51DE2A39-A5D8-4ED5-911F-445896B5F159@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hi Riccardo, </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I can answer that one. For 2010-02 (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02</a>) the WG started working down from one /8. Then the proposal started RIPE NCC had �7540 LIRs. Using a /22 per LIR would allow for 16000 LIRs, so more than double the amount at the time. A /16 of address space was set aside for unforeseen circumstances, and the policy states that that reservation would become part of the main pool if not used for such unforeseen circumstances when the pool runs out.</pre> </blockquote> My point here is that as when "last /8" was tought was to deploy IPv6 and leave space to new entrants. So objecting that 2015-05 will burn the free pool just because every LIR under /20 can request a /22 it's not point if wasn't the same in the past. We should attain at the historical datas to forecast or read an impact analisys about it. From approval of 2010-02 and 14 September 2012, when the policy was triggered, the number of LIRs grew from about 7540 to about 9000-10000. It would be able to forecast a grow of about 1500-2000 per year. Leaving the oportunity to any old LIRs (that reiceved allocation from 18 Jan 2011 up to 14/09/2012 under the old policy) to obtain a /22 after 14 September 2012 would made everyone able to forecast not more 7000-9000 /22 to new LIRs (LIRs after 09/2012) Let me say another time there are many stranges big allocations made just two weeks before the new policy took place. <blockquote cite="mid:51DE2A39-A5D8-4ED5-911F-445896B5F159@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> I think Daniel's comment at the time sums it up quite nicely: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space for them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over IPv4 for long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free allocatable IPv4 address space as long as possible. </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote cite="mid:51DE2A39-A5D8-4ED5-911F-445896B5F159@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> 2011-03 (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-03">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-03</a>) updated the policy regarding returned address space. If I remember correctly the arguments on the list at the time were that by putting all the returned address space in the same pool as 185/8 it was made sure that we wouldn't end up in a policy limbo where it was not clear which policy applied to which IPv4 addresses.</pre> </blockquote> Please note that the current text is: [...] This section only applies to address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC and that will not be returned to the IANA but re-issued by the RIPE NCC itself. [...] I am not able to fully understand this because I don't know what happens to returned address space and when not is handable by RIPE itself� and should be returned to IANA cleaned and issued back to RIR. <blockquote cite="mid:51DE2A39-A5D8-4ED5-911F-445896B5F159@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">And, frankly, we should take every opportunity remaining to expand the meagre pool of IPv4 addresses we leave to our children. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> And that's how we arrived at today's policy. Cheers, Sander </pre> </blockquote> Thank you to all old LIRs that didn't request their last /22 so I had the oportunity to request for it early Jan/2015. Anyway I strongly think the policy should go voer IPv4 and do something for IPv6! regards Riccardo <div class="moz-signature">-- <pre>Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rgori@wirem.net">rgori@wirem.net</a> Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943">https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943</a> </pre> <img src="cid:part1.3AA71E9B.7E8590FB@wirem.net" width="200"> <pre>WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@wirem.net">info@wirem.net</a> Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- </pre> </div> </body> </html>