On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015, at 11:25, Carlos Friacas wrote:
"Need" shouldn't be a criteria anymore, as we're in
"scarcity-mode"/"run-out" mode...
"Need" should be a criteria again, exactly because we're in run-out
mode.
Again, "need" starts and ends with "if needed", *withOUT* the "as much
as you need" part.
We agree to disagree :-)
One idea could be: «If the LIR doesn't have any other IPv4 allocation
made by the RIPE/NCC (before the run-out phase) besides the /22, if a
merge process is needed, the /22 is automatically returned to the pool».
One pretty BAD idea. Not only the small players have a difficult time,
but if some of them merge together, this makes sure they stay small.
They would need to remain a LIR in order to keep its /22.
What i don't like is the ability for someone to create a new LIR knowing
it will be decommissioned later, because the only intent is to "catch" a
/22.
Renumbering is generally delicate for acess customers, and goes to very
difficult (adminstratively and process-wise), sometimes limit impossible
to running server and services plafroms.
Yes, if one organization feels it needs to run away from renumbering, the
solution is to become a LIR and get/use its own /22. It will have to do
it once, but it will be the last time, provided they always keep their
LIR up & running.
The idea is to prevent address hoarding in the first place, not to
impose insane limitations on already running things.
Shouldn't be a problem if the LIR wasn't created with the original intent
of closing it down after some time...
Cheers,
Carlos
