Hi Remco,
On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote:
Hi all,
(no hats)
I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks
the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is
so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing
themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address
space.
We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few
presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this
topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members
registered after 2012 need more than the default /22.
Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a
similar policy and it seems to be working just fine.
For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably
won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to
optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to
be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider
it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t
happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about
IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as
many organisations as possible.
Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work
with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months.
Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could
well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.
Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive?
This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to
it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations
already received.
I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those
that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more
space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via
the transfer market is really high).
- would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please
share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.
Remco
* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal.
**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your
definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major
migrations to IPv6.
cheers,
Elvis
On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria",
is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
<[email protected]> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC
