On 23/09/2013 16:23, Tore Anderson wrote:
And LIRs could be tempted by selling these ressources without a need being properly justifying it.
(I am assuming we are talking about an LIR's assignment to its End User's here?)
You are right, this is what this discussion is all about : documenting the needs is about assignments, which occurs between LIR and End Users. This is where conservation and needs-based policy make sens.
As above, why would you expect an End User to buy an assignment (in itself, this is completely OK by today's policy BTW) if he has no need for it?
Because it is a good placement to survive, when you can get the ressource and others can't, they die and you survive. Being a CEO the survival of my company and its ability to have necessary ressources during scarcity periods is a main concern. Fortunately enough my business is not using much IP ressource. Several of my clients do however, and some would be glad to get a /22 to be more "in confidence", while they can hardly justify a /24.
It is already the case *today* that big and wealthy ISPs or corporations with lots of money to spend has a huge advantage over small and non-profit organisations.
Yes but I do not want to see it worsen, because of... what for by the way? I did not retain many supporting arguments from the rationale.
Today, the RIPE NCC does not make a "priority" list over organisations that are eligible for transfers. In other words, the RIPE NCC will do *nothing* to help the small/non-profit organisations to get what they need from the available market offerings before the big and wealthy ones gets to scoop up the rest. The small and non-profit organisations are on their own, and they are already today in a pretty hopeless situation.
Which is bad enough.
The only way I can see that 2013-03 would worsen the environment we already have, is if those that have no need for IPv4 address space suddenly starts wanting it and trying to buy it. I just do not see why that would happen.
Because 2013-03 allows it : End Users won't have to justify their needs anymore. Simple as that. Might not happen (in a perfect world), but do we choose the right timing to open such a pandora's box here ? And again, for what benefit ? Just spare a little time on documentation.
FWIW, the only reason why "need" is being removed for transfers, is that when you remove "need" for assignments (which *is* the goal), "need" at the allocation level becomes a meaningless concept, because the latter builds on the former.
Of course, yes (except for the goal). BTW it works the other way round : would you allow wasting of allocations (obviously last /8 policy does not) ? if not, you should not allow wasting of assignments. Simple logic. A->B is equivalent to /B->/A Best regards, Sylvain