* Filiz Yilmaz
On 21 Sep 2013, at 00:03, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
What is your motivation for adding the 'LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space' part?
- Demonstration brings accountability to any claim and makes the claim (of confirming the intent of making assignments) believable and supported. [This demonstration can be as simple as a couple of sentences describing the network and business of the new LIR and does not need to come in any specific form or shape.]
Ok, so let's see how this works: «I have an iMac. I intend to assign it an IPv4 address.» There. This is the essence of a 100% believable and justified assignment request, and is all that it takes for a new LIR to in turn justify receiving the last /22 allocation.
- Those who intend to lie to the RIPE NCC will be forced to be a bit more creative and work on their case harder than just clicking a combo box.
Well, I actually have an admission to make - I lied. I don't have an iMac. I'm more of a PC man, truth to be told. I don't consider myself a particularly creative man, yet this particular lie came easy.
Those who really have a need can explain this briefly very easily and pass the criteria without any hassle.
«I have a PC. I intend to assign it an IPv4 address.» «I have a server. I intend to assign it an IPv4 address.» There. Those would be the God's honest truth. The point I'm trying to make here is that justifying the single-address assignment necessary to obtain a last /22 is so trivial that anyone can do it. Especially anyone who is motivated enough to fork out €3800 in the pursuit of said /22.
- RIPE NCC may be able to demonstrate and defend their position why they allocated space rightfully way better if they have to one day to some I* organisation, having received some demonstration from LIRs.
I do not know what an "I* organisation" is, but this sounds to me to be the same argument as the Dutch Tax Office point that was brought up by the NCC, which was been removed from the last IA due to the addition of the requirement that LIRs confirm their intent to make assignments from any last /8 allocation. Keep in mind that the NCC's job is to implement the Community's bottom-up policies in a neutral and transparent manner. If the Community says "make a checkbox", and the NCC adds this checkbox, the NCC has no reason to "defend their position" for doing so and for allocating space to the members who tick the checkbox.
The LIR may have chosen to lie and fake their demonstration but the RIR will be still have had asked the right questions to consider "need" as their justification of who gets the space.
As above, *truthfully* justifying a single IPv4 address is so trivial that it is not necessary for anyone to lie. But if someone who spends €3800 on getting a /22 truly has no equipment which could be used to truthfully justify a single IPv4 address, they could even turn to the NCC for help: «I have just ordered free RIPE Atlas probe from https://atlas.ripe.net/apply (see ticket #1234). I intend to assign it an IPv4 address.» In spite of this, if the requesting LIR for whatever reason still chooses to lie, this is something the NCC can trivially verify - even in a fully automated fashion. All they need to do is to see whether or not an inetnum object with status ASSIGNED PA has been registered in the database some reasonable time after the covering ALLOCATED PA one was. (The potential for such a check was actually pointed out to me by the NCC during the preparation of the amendment, it is not my idea.)
- Adding this may help getting agreement of those who currently object the proposal because of the complete removal of justification of need from the policy, as it is kept for allocations to new LIRs, while it is removed from assignments, which is the real bureaucracy on the LIR side. So this looks to me like a compromise between two conflicting interests/wishes.
Sorry. This is where you lose me. The 2nd amendment that went into version 3 of the proposal was added *specifically* to reach a compromise and an acceptable middle ground for the objections made by yourself and Malcolm Hutty: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008105.... Note that the check-box in question was actually Malcolm's idea, not mine. I was really trying to give you (as in you the objectors) exactly what you wanted here! Also, I took care to CC-ed explicitly on the above message, because I felt the issue was pretty much the same as the one you raised in this message: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008104.... In this message, you wrote, and I quote: «I advocate for keeping the justification for need ***or some kind of commitment from the requester that the space is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party.***» (emphasis mine) This kind of "commitment" you proposed here is *exactly* what the amendment in question implements! In any case, neither you nor Malcolm chose not to respond to the first linked-to message containing an initial draft of what became the 2nd amendment, even though it ended in the explicit question «Would this be sufficient to remove your concerns?». So I took it back to the NCC and did some wordsmithing with them to ensure we ended up with a text that accomplished precisely what I honestly believed was what you were after. After the completion of this work, I posted the exact text of the draft amendments to the list, while the review phase was still open and there was still a window for further adjustments: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008155.... ...accompanied by an introduction that 1) highlights that your objection is one of the points attempted to be addressed by the amendment, and 2) that anyone who would have remaining objections after the amendment please "speak now or forever hold your peace" so as to avoid not asking the NCC to spend lots of time and effort on making another useless IA. You held your peace, Filiz. I am nonplussed as to why. If you still objected to the amended proposal, why did you choose to wait until now with sharing it with the WG? Why didn't you share your views when they were asked for, when we had a perfect window of opportunity to further polish the amendments *before* the previous review period ended? Best regards, Tore Anderson