On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote: <snip>
As Roger Jørgensen has explained, once the policy was triggered, it was to apply to all subsequent allocations.
However, in the meantime some events happened: - recovered space issue - space returned to IANA 2012-05 to 2014-04 and gradually returned starting 2014-05 already known, space would be returned, and redistributed, it would still be covered by the policy since it would cover all allocation after that point in time.
- 2013-03 - no need checking - 2014-04 - no ipv6 requirement adjustment, as we do with all policy. Maybe we should make it harder to get IPv4 space? ... but how would that help on the part we really need, more IPv6? Also it might over time make the RIR registry incomplete and full of error, that will hurt the Internet way more than the current gaming actual harm... as sad as that is... :-(
- still keeping a high (~= /8) level of "somehow available space" as said earlier, it does not matter, the policy was there to safeguard some space for future startups. We are just lucky that the space has grown due to return and reallocation! Are you sure that we all here are saving space for new entrants? or
Hi Roger, Il 21/04/2016 08:40, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: there can be someone saving economic value of its allocations? Everyone of us should be aware that when a resource is exhausted there's no more value in it. I would know all allocations holded by pleople to figure how much everyone is philanthropic Please understand I am not referring to anyone in particoular can be all of us me included or nobody And again remeber I am not for fast depletion.
- policy abuse, pushing to limits and general change in "who is a LIR" (get-to-transfer, multi-LIR/company, out-of-continent LIRs - more and more of them, corporate LIRs or simply "just want my damn ASN and /24" LIRs) ... and here we are again back at the core, the abuse/gaming the system to get more address space. The only real solution to this is to deploy IPv6. Handing out more address space than /22 is not a solution because there will always be a need for more. There is no upper limit and we just run out way faster, and as said over and over again, that will ruin the point with this policy - safeguard some space for the future startups.
I am happy with giving RIPE NCC power to turn down request from obvious fake company... however that has it's own problem and not all of them are solvable by this working group, some might not be solvable at all.
I hope everybody does realize how this proposal came to life. giving out more space to those that ask for it is not a good solution with the future in mind. However if everyone want to be greedy here and now and say screw the future (sorry the language)...
-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net 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 info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
