Hello all, I fully agree with Erik and the rest. I still don't support this proposal.
-- George On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Erik Bais <[email protected]> wrote: > Riccardo, > > > > > with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8 > policy. > > The fact that you don’t see it, doesn’t make it less true. > > > > RIPE IPv4 is out … the reservation of space for IXP’s and other uses ( > like future new entrance ) doesn’t change that. > > > > This is not something we have to explain .. this is not something that we > will change. > > > > The /22 IPv4 is not for new entrance to assign to customers.. it is to > enable them to communicate via a CGNAT from a v6 world to a v4 world. > > > > If you don’t use the obtained v4 space for the intended use, it will never > be enough and you will always feel incorrectly treated … > > > > This policy proposal (with all respect to you and Radu and good > intentions) needs to stop as it gives people hope on something that isn’t > there ... > > > > Regards, > > Erik Bais > > > > *Van:* address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] *Namens > *Riccardo Gori > *Verzonden:* vrijdag 15 april 2016 7:49 > *Aan:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Onderwerp:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended > until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) > > > > Good Morning Remco, Good Morning List, > > with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8 > policy. > We are dealing with the same amount of space as September 2012 that in the > meanwhile has been abused in several ways and there are really no > incentives to IPv6 adoption. > > There was only one requirement to obtain one IPv4 /22: request and obtain > at least from /32 IPv6 to a maximum of /29 IPv6. > Am I wrong or this requirement has been removed?!?! Please explain that to > a new entrant... > What does it mean? "we are running out. here your crumbs, sorry we have no > solution" ?!? > > If for you last /8 policy is a success to me IPv6 incentives policies > looks absent. We completly failed from this point of view. > If you look at this where IPv4 exhaustion took place IPv6 is strongly > gowing: > https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption > > I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier > exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it > to grow. > > kind regards > Riccardo > > Il 15/04/2016 00:50, remco van mook ha scritto: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks > another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business > is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, > then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem > is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion > that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement > than new entrants 2 years from now. > > > > The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a > remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle > about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious > loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the > policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Remco > > (no hats) > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 > Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback > and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new > Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. > > Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: > - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address > space outside 185/8 > - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive > additional allocations > - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <[email protected]>. > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > -- > > Ing. Riccardo Gori > > e-mail: [email protected] > > Mobile: +39 339 8925947 > > Mobile: +34 602 009 437 > > Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 > > WIREM Fiber Revolution > > Net-IT s.r.l. > > Via Cesare Montanari, 2 > > 47521 Cesena (FC) > > Tel +39 0547 1955485 > > Fax +39 0547 1950285 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons > > above and may contain confidential information. If you have received > > the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof > > is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete > > the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- > > plying to [email protected] > > Thank you > > WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
