I agree with Jim's and many other people's later comments - we should prioritise keeping what's left of the IPv4 address space for the long term new entrants, not find ways to hand it out sooner to existing LIR's, large or small.
For absolute clarity, I do not support this proposal Regards Bob 07958 318592 -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: 14 April 2016 17:02 To: Aled Morris Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) > On 14 Apr 2016, at 15:34, Aled Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants > into the market to grow. I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? years from now. LIRs who take advantage of this proposal would continue to fail to deal with the v4 run-out. That would be bad for everyone. > Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult to grow when you're > limited to your one /22 in today's market. Tough. It’s difficult to get on a train long after it has left the station. New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is and should plan accordingly. Everyone would like to grow their IPv4 networks but that just isn’t possible any more. > We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option. It's the only sane option. But there are others. Choose wisely. Changing address policy to speed up depletion of the NCC's last dregs of IPv4 is not wise. Doing that just because some LIRs -- not necessarily new entrants -- can’t or won’t face up to the reality of IPv4 exhaustion is even more unwise. This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right. > Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about > recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent > new entrants. I’m far from convinced there is a “real problem” here. If compelling arguments can be made to define the problem and solve it, let’s hear them! IMO this proposal is really about short-term gain for some at the expense of others, particularly tomorrow’s new LIRs. BTW what’s to stop an unscrupulous LIR from repeatedly requesting extra /22s (or whatever) through this proposal and then selling/transferring the space without updating the database? If they tried to do this today, they could only get away with it once because they’d only get one v4 allocation. NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you. We monitor our email system, and may record your emails. EE Limited Registered office:Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW Registered in England no: 02382161 EE Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of: British Telecommunications plc Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no: 1800000
