On 11 May 2016, at 14:52 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote:
Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to
185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than
half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) -
effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in
the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their
last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more
than half, no?
No, because:
- it will not be dedicated to "further allocations"
- there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to
qualify
- with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last
/8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further
allocations".
OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers:
Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1)
Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1)
New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3)
Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2)
Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy to get another allocation.
Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year.
Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool should last until early 2019.
At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now empty as well.
So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere in early 2019.
The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185 pool' was gone by the time it was needed.
Now let's look at the current policy. As of today, a total of about 15,130 /22s are available.
Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the available pool should last until 2025 (although the uncertainties are quite high if you extrapolate that far out)
So on one hand, we have a proposal that will be game over for all in about 3 years, or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for existing and future LIRs well into the next decade.
At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so they tell me.
The proposed policy has an impact (even the policy proposal itself says so (4)), and one that I strongly object to.
(if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so)
Sources:
1) https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
2) https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016/supporting-documents/ripe-ncc-annual-report-2015
3) https://labs.ripe.net/statistics
4) https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
Remco
(no hats)
--
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------