Hi! >> thus they should vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships >> directly.
In my opinion it's absolutely right and current matter should be submitted for common voting. It's important to do this way because: 1) The proposal offer important change to IPv4 policy; 2) The proposal potentially affects many LIR's; 3) Only a small part of LIR's participate in present discussion; So I think the only way to make fair decision is to ask all LIR's regarding their opinion. 09.06.2015, 17:28, "Storch Matei" <[email protected]>: > Guten Tag Garry, > > I didn't argue both ways, one was the opinion of the RIPE NCC in their impact > analysis (in my understanding), and the other one was my opinion. > Maybe financial discussions are not important to this group, but I do think > they are important to RIPE members altogether, so in my opinion it is a valid > argument, to which the members should be made aware of, and thus they should > vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships directly. > And, some time ago, there was a vivid discussion between members, that Ipv6 > adoption should be encouraged intensly. If the free pool of Ipv4, there is no > better encouragement than that. Of course this has pros and cons, but it is a > reality, as long as ipv4 exists, and is still available as allocation or > transfer, ipv6 will not be fully adopted. In my opinion this policy will > prolongue the process of ipv6 adoption. Of course some people will benefit > from this, but the big picture should be taken into consideration, as long as > the procentage is not a high one (10% in my opinion is low). > > Matei Storch > [F]: General Manager > [M]: +40728.555.004 > [E]: [email protected] > [C]: Profisol Telecom > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Garry Glendown > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 14:01 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis > Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > > Guten Tag, >> Hi! >> >> Fully support your arguments. >> >> 09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" <[email protected]>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of >>> view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my >>> understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from >>> the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new >>> /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last >>> more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time. > > The 5-year-calculation is based on a linear growth - as v4 availability will > be more and more limited, there will most likely be more companies looking to > receive PI addresses (which aren't available anymore), which will cause them > to become an LIR for the sole purpose of receiving their own address space. > So without other effects of returned addresses, I would imagine that > timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now look at the uptake of IPv6 > at both providers and end customers - do you really believe that the Internet > will be ready to go IPv6-only within three years? I would love to see that, > but I seriously doubt it ... so anybody left at that point in time with only > IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ... >>> Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs >>> because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be >>> lowered. >>> Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros >>> setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and >>> it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. > > Financial reasons aren't the scope of the WG (and neither should nor are they > I believe for RIPE) as far as ensuring the Internet with it's reliance on > IPv4 are concerned. RIPE got bye well before the run on the final IPv4 > addresses began, and I believe even if we stop(ped) hoarders from abusing the > system in order to get around the "one /22 limit", they will still be able to > get around fine. Also, you can't argue both sides in your favor - either you > say there is no problem as there aren't many hoarders, or you say that the > income is essential and shouldn't be dismissed. Saying both contradicts > yourself ... (additionally, I don't think monthly fees would be noticeably > lower even with additional hoarders coming in) > >>> Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should >>> be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. >>> Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules >>> during the game" >>> and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. > > Oh, so somebody tries to abuse the intent of a policy, and they shouldn't be > subject to possible changes of the system? The price for the /22's he's > getting only doubled, so I believe that's still OK. Bad Luck. > > Regards, Garry -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
