Sorry Sander,
thank you for your reply. I didn't reply to your first email 'cause i
was busy. That's why my comment could not be understood at this time.
I'll reply to your first email in reply to mine and I'll get here later..
regards
Riccardo
Il 17/06/2016 23:48, Sander Steffann ha scritto:
Hi Riccardo,
I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already
disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)
You keep bringing that up, but how is preventing those newer LIRs from selling
their addresses in any way disadvantaging them? On one hand you keep saying new
LIRs don't get enough address space, and on the other hand you're saying that
it is bad that they can't sell their space. Which one is it?
This proposal doesn't prevent new LIRs from buying address space. And if they
want to buy /22s from other newer LIRs they can as easily (and cheaper) open
their own second LIR. The RIPE NCC membership explicitly allowed that during
the last AGM.
Two scenarios:
One
- Someone opens up an LIR
- They get their /22 (free)
- They sell it off to another LIR for a profit
Two
- That other LIR opens up a second LIR
- They get their /22 (free)
- They merge that new LIR with their old LIR using M&A
This policy proposal is stopping scenario One but not scenario Two. The
previous version of the proposal did, but as that didn't get any support this
version removed that restriction.
So what is this proposal blocking for new LIRs? Not buying space, not opening
up a second LIR and getting that /22 from RIPE NCC. It only limits those LIRs
from *selling* their /22 for profit.
I'm sorry, but if that is your business model then you are exactly the kind of
business that this proposal is trying to stop. The IPv4 allocation policy has
very few requirements, and one of them is that the LIR has to use it for assign
addresses from. If the intention is to sell those addresses then you are
already in violation of the current policy. That is *NOT* why you were given
that /22 in the first place.
And as far as judging consensus goes, arguments that boil down to "I am currently
violating the policy by requesting my /22 for the wrong reasons, and this proposal is
stopping me from doing that" will not be taken into account. There are plenty of
other arguments that need to be discussed, like the potential impact on the accuracy of
the registry that Nick brought up. But there is too much FUD and noise in this discussion.
I don't mind if you send opposing arguments, but as I have said before I do care about
the quality of the discussion. If you respond this policy in its current form then I'd
like to see good argumentation with concrete examples of issues, not some hand-waving
like "this is disadvantaging new LIRs" without any explanation of how that
exactly would work. Then we have something to discuss that people can respond to.
Consensus building works by explaining the issues and people trying to address them.
Pretend I'm stupid and spell it out for me :)
Cheers,
Sander
--
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
