[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 03:06:08AM +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote:
> Just my 2ct: not any University or worse religous campaign should
> block a /8 or /16 without having to state HERE&NOW why and for what
> they really need&use it.
> They need exactly 1 IP for every 65536 concurrently active student to
> NAT and 1 for each public service at most, lets put a /22 for infra on
> top and then we're fine..

This is not how the old Internet used to work, and it is not how it 
works today - nobody is forced to use NAT by the RIRs, and that's how
it must be (*and* it has nothing to do with the question of ERX space
governance whatsoever).

> We have to do either I guess, at least we do, according to
> RIPE-policys. So we're playing with different cards here, legacy
> holders are being asked "what might be a nice proposal they like", I'm
> not asked what "might be nice for me"

ERX space has not been given out under RIPE policies, so they do not
apply.  Period.  There is no law, legal contract, or anything else that
would make RIPE policies automagically apply to ERX space (and even 
*then*, there would not be any RIPE policy forcing a user of IP address 
space to use NAT if they do not want to).

[..]
> Done worldwide this would fully obsolete the whole IPv4 address-space
> discussion for many, many years!

It would solve nothing.  If people insist on cementing their IPv4 world
for a few more years, they would have *more* stuff to move to IPv6 in the
long run - nothing solved.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279