[members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC, Members and Multiple LIRs

TL,DR: LIR account control is not related to the last /8 policy which
 is about allow End Users to get minimal ressources, debate should
 occur about a policy about the last *assignment* to the new EndUser.


Dear all,

I'ts been a long time yesterday to read all theses threads about wether
or not to continue to allow members to open new LIR accounts.

Let 'A' be "wether or not to allow members to open new LIR accounts".

We've seen quite quickly that this proposition would be a very poor 
attemps to avaoid some members to get another /22, disregarding the 
last /8 policy, since this can be easily achieved another way (creating 
another company by example). Workarounds exist, some of them quite
respectful of the letter of the policy, some but simply cheating and/or
providing false information to the Ripe.

Facing the poor impact such a measure would have on the real problem
that we are strugling with, debates went naturally quite further to
try to take other aspects into consideration and try to get a more
effective solution thant just A.

This has no end, we can't get to a conclusion trying to match A with
the last /8 policy because the are not related. 

Many people here recalled that the last /8 policy spirit (if not the
letter) is to allow newcomers to born and get the minimal IPv4 ressource
to be able to jumpstart. This is what it is all about. But those 
newcomers do not have to be LIRs. Thinking that they should is wrong
in two ways : forgetting that most companies needing to born outside 
there are actually EndUsers (yes, our clients quite often), and taking
it for granted that a LIR has an ASN, a network, is an IP operateur
itself or even an ISP, which is just wrong. But a LIR is *just* an
IP distributor benefiting from a special relationship with the Ripe
to *serve* its EndUsers.

So having a policy like the last /8 read from an ASN or ISP perspective
instead of from the EndUser's is quite an abuse of our LIR personality.

Now, A is just void, never mind. It has been the occasion for many to
contribute and have an oversight of some mechanisms for controlling the
distribution of the last /8, and/or ways to cheat. We can use these
to think about realistic measures to achieve the real goal.

And the real problematic from last /8 policy could be stated like :
« how to state distribution rules for the LIRs in order to have them
to distribute one and only one /2x per EndUser, and enforce them »

/2x to be defined later.

Such a statement would help us to have a discussion that has a chance
to come to something constructive. This also means a change of paradigms
that will quite help :

1. hey LIRs, last IPv4s are not for you.

2. EndUsers back to the center of the Ripe's preocupations

3. limiting a LIR to one or several accounts is void, limiting them
  to a /22 is void also

4. back to serious and responsible relations between EndUsers and
  LIRs : EndUsers identities and relations should be seriously
  documented

5. LIRs back to their distribution role (not consumers), with 
  a clear responsibility about making serious assignments and
  respect the policy limit per EndUser

6. allocations unlocked but LIR abuse will not be tolerated


So, back to a normal working for LIRs that commit to achieve their
real function and assume responbility for that.

LIRs that mess up their LIR function and their IP operator have
already received their last /22. They now for long that IPv4 is
not available, and they must move to ipv6 or get IP on the market.

LIRs that understand and commit to make a proper distribution to
the new EndUsers coming should be able to fullfill their role,
under control, but without irrelevant restrictions.

Please comment.

Best regards,
Sylvain


-- 
http://www.opdop.fr  -  mutualiser et interconnecter en coopérative
Opdop - Société Coopérative d'Interêt Collectif sous forme de SARL
sur IRC réseau geeknode #opdop - tél: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68