Hi, I do not think anyone is disadvantaged. The fact is that we have talked about IPv4 exhaustion for years now. If you are thinking about starting a new LIR, please think first, as always when starting new business. Is it enough for your organization to have a /22 or not. Bigger LIR:s had several years to implement IPv6, the IPv4 exhaustion is nothing new. Of course, everyone want to apply for new addresses if possible to get them. But when the parcel with IPv4 addresses are empty, then it is empty.
Julianna -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Pitulac Sent: den 15 april 2016 11:02 To: Gert Doering; Aled Morris Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Hi, First I personally support this policy because I believe the small LIR need help and not the larger ones, which stay relaxed on large pools and disagree with this policy because if small LIR grow, they will lose market share. It's easy for someone who administers a /16 or larger to disagree because its business won't stop to grow at the rate of a small LIR with a /22 or similar. What I'm talking about here is large pool -> more dynamic allocation/dis-allocation which translated in run the business at a certain level even if ipv4 pool is gone, where small pool results in stalled business growth for small LIR's. So even if you say the small LIR's are *advantaged* this won't hurt the market. The discussion regarding the last /8 policy benefit can be long, but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode. Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed. With regards, Adrian Pitulac On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote: >> The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" >> which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against >> proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged >> against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back >> on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only >> proposition. > Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* > by this policy, but actually *advantaged*. > > If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small > startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can > get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away > space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time? > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair
