On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Hi,
you still pay only *membership* fee. It's not a per-IP cost, even if it can
look like that. Old resource holders pays similar fee independently from number
of IP addresses they hold.
RIPE NCC members can change this charging scheme, right? It was not like this
always...
You are correct: RIPE NCC members. This group is not a perfect match
with the community that discusses and builds up policies :-)
One of goals is *conservation*, and initial assignment of /24 helps with that - and not each new LIR really
needs /22. There're lot of organisationss having single /24 (old PI allocations) from the past and they're
still happy with that. These were allocated to end users, are routed and also nobody concerned about routing
table size. Since posibility of PI alocations was ceased, new organisations have to become "full
LIR" - and then you receive /22, automatically - even you don't need it. We're simply wasting limited
addres space here - just because something "simplified" and "automated".
An org will not be limited to /24 even with this proposal; they can
open additional LIRs to get more.
Yes, 2017-03 v1.0 doesn't try to limit that -- if i understood correctly,
some people disagree, and think it should.
Or register a new business if RIPE NCC bans multi LIR again.
I guess only the RIPE NCC GA can do that, not RIPE NCC itself.
It is not easy to say that we are wasting limited address space by
allocating /22, the ones need less than an /22 can transfer their free
blocks to others who are in need (even new entrants)
in need, or not (if they are only trying to stockpile for later...)
after two years or lease them immediately.
Yes... that's current policy, and 2017-03 doesn't touch that.
Maybe there are some LIRs don?t fully utilize their /22 as soon as
they receive the allocation, but what about the ones got their
allocations before last /8 policy, are they all fully used?
Of course not.
The actual wasting was done somewhere else years ago, and nobody cares
about that now.
There is also the issue with "refurbished" address space... apart from the
issue that IPv4 address space now has value, so creating a new rule/policy
to "extract" it frow its current owners is quite inimaginable... :-)
Regards,
Carlos Friaças
Regards,
Arash
