<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Hi Carlos, sorry for the late reply I was out for work. I'll reply only to your question "> Fix IPv6 rate adoption by policy? " Carlos, this policy proposal aims to fix IPv4 rate depletion... so why don't use a policy for "rate adoption"? do you see any difference? Rest is personal opinion and from my point of view any conservative policy will only last the pain longer. thank you regards Riccardo <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 24/09/2017 15:09, Carlos Friaças ha scritto: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:alpine.LRH.2.21.1709241302060.26069@gauntlet.corp.fccn.pt"> Hi Riccardo, All, Thanks for your input. Please see inline. On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Riccardo Gori wrote: <blockquote type="cite">Dear all, I started as an ISP early 2015 and I still consider myself a new entrant. </blockquote> That's not my definition for "new entrant". Strictly i consider a new entrant as an organization which doesn't own any IPv4 or IPv6 address space. Loosely, it can be a new LIR (before getting its /22 and an IPv6 block under current policy)... But, luckly the community approved a policy for the last /8 long before 2015. If that didn't happen, your only solution would have been to rely on the market. </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:alpine.LRH.2.21.1709241302060.26069@gauntlet.corp.fccn.pt"> <blockquote type="cite">In the last 2 years I heard about a couple of time "no more IPv4 policies let's go over and think how to fix/help IPv6 rate adoption" but today we are still here complaining what's the best way to last longer with the agony. </blockquote> Is "no more IPv4 policies" written in stone somewhere? :-) Fix IPv6 rate adoption by policy? Let's call our countries' telecom regulators, and ask for a policy that prohibits IPv4 usage from day X onwards? -- i don't think so........... <blockquote type="cite">For Ipv6 RIPE NCC is doing its best with training and is really appreciated </blockquote> +1 on that! <blockquote type="cite">and I learned here that we tend to not mix IPv4/6 policies but I really expected incentives from the cummunity not obstacles. The "IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8" was abandoned 23/10/2014 by the adoption of 2014-04 proposal </blockquote> Looking back now, was that a good decision...? <blockquote type="cite">while this 2017-03 proposal aims to last as longer as possible with IPv4. </blockquote> Should we tweak it, and make it more "stricter", in a way the address space is (automatically?) returned if it's not being used in v4/v6 translation mechanisms...? (and do we have means to check that?) <blockquote type="cite">Looks to me that we are trying to save future generation from ice melting saving oil tanks instead of working on research and incentives to clean energies. </blockquote> Incentives cost money -- taxpayers' or consumers' money (or both!) <blockquote type="cite">I don't see even any reason to save more address space than the current policies does 'casue we have "trasfert policies" </blockquote> Transfers of last /8 slices are still allowed after 24 months -- should that possibility end...? (2017-03 v1.0 doesn't address transfers) <blockquote type="cite">for almost any kind of IP resource and if there are some restrictions on new allocation there are more flexible for legacy space. </blockquote> The RIPE community (through the NCC) only provides services to legacy space holders (and there was a proprosal for that... 2012-07). The RIPE community is not able to design policies regarding address space which was distributed before the NCC's creation. <blockquote type="cite">Today you can simply choose to go RIPE or market as your feeling to get IPv4/6 if needed. </blockquote> If the choice is going to the "market" (and if you are in strict sense a new entrant), the "market" will not advocate you should use/deploy IPv6. On the other hand, if the choice is becoming a LIR, you will get that... :-) <blockquote type="cite">My small router deals today with more than 2.5 million routes (2 full routing tables and some IX) and it really takes time to backup and even routing performance are affected by volume of routes. I think we should propote IPv6 for route aggregation ability. </blockquote> There is also de-aggregation in IPv6-land. :-( (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/">http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/</a>) People will mess up routing as the rest of the world lets them... <blockquote type="cite">I see this policy as: - an obstacle to IPv6 </blockquote> That was not the goal. The goal was to extend v4 availability for some more time, thus making life easier for IPv6 deployments that will still need to talk with the v4 world. <blockquote type="cite">- a clear side effect of market price rise on IPv4 </blockquote> This proposal is not about the "market". a /24 can cost X, Y or Z over time. The only way we can keep "affordability" for new entrants is by defining what they get from the NCC, not from any 3rd party. <blockquote type="cite">- a disincentive to route aggregation </blockquote> I don't agree. /22s (and bigger chunks) are already being announced as /24s. What we consider is that keeping the "affordability" for new entrants is a bigger priority than keeping the DFZ on 683k (today) instead of 725k, 750k or even 800k routes. I know 800k routes looks insane, but two years ago 683k would have been equally insane :-)) ps: On 24-09-2015 (two years ago), 572876 routes <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150924225101/https://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/">https://web.archive.org/web/20150924225101/https://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/</a> Thanks! Best Regards, Carlos Friaças <blockquote type="cite">That's why I oppose this policy kind regards Riccardo -- Riccardo Gori </blockquote> </blockquote> <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> Italia: +39 339 89 25 947 España: +34 660 11 59 89 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="http://www.wirem.net/assets/components/wirem/images/logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg" 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>