<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto" style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">Dear colleagues, While it is really interesting to see that the waiting list is primarily used as a means of extension for existing LIRs, it would be rather more interesting to look at the current size of the respective LIRs. It makes a lot of sense for a small LIR holding a single /24 to open a second and request a secondary /24. Effectively, holding a /23 worth of IPv4 space is still negligible in comparison to some of our fellow LIRs holding a trifold of that. It seems a countermeasure to restrict every single new /24 allocation in terms of a transfer. It will only prevent new colleagues in order for them to grow and excel in their various new concepts. I would personally strongly advocate restrictions, but only for those who already ‘hold a lot’. It is simply unfair to limit new entrepreneurs in their ventures by throwing monetary bars that hold them back in potential growth. This will only really benefit the bigger colleagues among us, as the new small ‘fish’ are unable to compete because they lack resources to deliver a proper alternative. As such, I would rather propose a maximum amount of /24s (through new memberships) to be requested through the current waiting list policy by a single entity in a given time frame. It is not unrealistic to limit this at a single /24 per e.g. six months. This would result throwing the real ‘hoarders’ under the bus, by not facilitating their hunger for obtaining IPv4 ‘at the cheap’, while still allowing ‘legitimate’ new members to grow by allocating them the resources they need. Also, let’s not forget that while the IPv4 waiting list hands out IPv4 from the RIPE NCC ‘free’ pool, the amount of IPv4 that is recovered is very limited and will probably be even more limited in the foreseeable future. It would make a lot more sense to push at recovering more space, that can than be handed to new colleagues in a more fair, somewhat more restrictive way. Just by looking at some public looking glasses, I can find examples of hobbyist / amateur associations that hold a /16, while it seems not nearly a quarter of that is in active use. While it has been rejected a lot of times before, and another shot at it likely won’t make a difference, the real way to recover IPv4 space, seems to be by putting monetary sanctions on free space. Think of this in terms of changing the way the RIPE NCC does their billing. At current, every single LIR, no matter its size, pays the same contribution towards our association. This policy does NOT push fellow members into returning space they no longer need, or won’t need in the foreseeable future, as holding it does not cost anything. When replacing the current billing scheme into a more flexible billing scheme where each individual IPv4 held can and will be billed, the organisations that do not need the space will return the free space. After all: why pay for resources that you do not need, and won’t need? Of course, for smaller LIRs, this impact won’t be significant. But picture a LIR holding several /16s, of which only a couple of /24 prefixes are in active use? At a small fee of say 10 euro cents per IPv4 address, returning half of a /16, would mean an annual reduction of costs by 6K. Such amount is not that significant, but big enough to push smaller LIRs that hold such an amount of unused space, to return the unused parts. Such a policy could free up a lot of unused space that can then be redistributed to our new colleagues through a more restrictive waiting list mechanism. In this current discussion, some of our fellow colleagues have a tendency to ignore identifying a problem, because they believe IPv4 will ‘die’ on a short term. Let’s face it: at current, a proper hosting service cannot be delivered without IPv4. Of course, there is a steady growth to be identified in global IPv6 usage, this does not mean we can simply have new colleagues ‘wait’ another ten years or so before their IPv6-only services can be seen as mature enough for production use. To wrap up my argument: the sole way of resolving this matter is by having the older LIRs be lenient enough to help recover space by returning it, and redistributing it in a fair manner. It is often said that. The current ‘guild’ of network engineers like to see the next generation grow up, and show interest in their very interesting field. I, myself, at the young age of 21, identify myself as such. But without any leniency from their end to help give everyone a fair chance at starting their own online ventures, by means of allocating at least the most essential resources for them to get going, this will only get harder and harder in the years to come. Yes, my stance will generate a lot of resistance, I am sure, by exactly the group I mentioned that will in this matter show a lack of lenience. But please, all, let’s take a stance that is serious and will help us all along in times of the ‘real-real-real’ scarce of IPv4 in our service region. Regards, Rick Bakker </div></div>