Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Hi, all! I agree with Yury and oppose this proposal. It would be better to return unused allocations more than 24 months not from the last /8 pool. Many companies have /16, maybe more for free. 6 Окт 2017 г. 20:22 пользователь "NTX NOC" <noc@ntx.ru> написал: Greetings! I Oppose this proposal. Minimum routing block is /24 and new LIR will be too difficult to build network in different locations. Most new LIR are small companies. For other half of the companies - they will have to route a lot of small block as 24, routing table will grow high. Nothing useful in this case. I wish this allocation should be greater, les say /21 as in apnic. If everybody force IPv6 - then better to distribute IPv4 and go to v6 With current rate of Ipv4 distribution ipv4 will be enough for many years. And we should take in mind that time to time RIPE get Ips back to reserve pool from the closed companies and etc. For people who always care about IPv4 reserved the answer is next - there big Ipv4 reserved space "for future use" according RFC, my opinion that people should look in that direction. I support it too. NTX NOC Yury Bogdanov On 21.09.2017 14:43, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-03, "Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not received an IPv4 allocation directly from the RIPE NCC before.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the RIPE Working Group Chairs, decides how to proceed with the proposal.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 20 October 2017.
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
That is the problem: _for free_. A new LIR who owns a single /22 (current value: €10k) pays as much as a LIR who owns a /12 (€10M for something that they paid about 0€). There are too many interest behind IPv4 deficiency. This is totally unfair. Simple as that. Il 06/10/2017 22:01, Aleksey Bulgakov ha scritto:
Hi, all!
I agree with Yury and oppose this proposal. It would be better to return unused allocations more than 24 months not from the last /8 pool. Many companies have /16, maybe more *f**or free.*
participants (2)
-
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Servereasy