Hi Ciprian, * Ciprian Nica
> What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the > community will benefit from it or some small group of people. > > To summarize the effects will be : > - higher membership fees Nope. The RIPE NCC membership is steadily growing[1], and as a result the membership fee has steadily been decreasing[2]. [1] https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620 The main reason for this growth is *actual network operators* joining in order to make use of the «last /8 policy». Even if we managed to stop *all* the "create LIR; transfer /22; close LIR" abuse, that would not reverse this trend. Also, keep in mind that these "create; transfer; close" LIRs will pay the NCC as little as they can get away with. As I understand it, that means the sign-up fee and one yearly membership fee. If the goal is to increase the NCC's revenue and lower the membership fees, it is much better long-term strategy to deny these "create; transfer; close" LIRs and instead keep the /22s in reserve for future LIRs belonging to *actual network operators*. Why? Because these will actually *keep paying their membership fees* instead of closing down as soon as possible. > What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? > The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? The by far biggest contributor to the RIPE NCC's «last /8» pool has been the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space pool[4]. [4] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovered-address-space.xhtml This pool contained quite a bit of space when it was first activate, and the RIPE NCC has to date received 3,670,016 IPv4 addresses from it (/11+/12+/13). It is important to note, though, that the IANA pool *is not replenishing*. It has been almost three years ago since any significant amounts of space was added to it (back in 2012-08). So we cannot expect that allocations from the IANA pool will continue to match the rate of /22 allocations from the RIPE NCC's «last /8» pool in the future. Therefore I have every expectation that we'll start seeing «last /8» pool actually start to drain soon. For what it's worth, since the first «last /8» allocation was made 995 days ago (cake in five days!), a total of 6,657,280 IPv4 addresses has been delegated by the NCC. Our share of the remaining IANA pool is on the other hand only 425,625 addresses. So all in all, I think that preserving the last /8 pool is indeed a valuable goal. If possible I'd like to see it last for another ten years - but given today's burn rate, the current 18.1M addresses plus whatever's coming from IANA will not suffice. Tore
