2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24) (fwd)
I was unaware about this list limitation, but hope this helps... :-) Regards, Carlos ========= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:18:45 From: Michael Kafka <mika@net-cat.at> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on this list, cannot reply to old topic Hi everyone, I'd like to join the discussion here on the list but I just registered so I can't reply to the existing topic and I don't want to start a new thread. For the sake of a clean thread, can someone please reply to: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24) Thanks, MiKa ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:04:26 From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-02, "Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to reduce the IPv4 allocation size to a /24 once the RIPE NCC is unable to allocate contiguous /22 ranges. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02 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 WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 5 March 2019. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer
Hello, After reading the prupose and some archive on this mailing (you can over ripe website) , i have an idea about the reason of prupose. The /24 proposal is for emergency when ripe run out of V4 (5M address now, aprox 5K new LIR). Why not doing a prupose based on LIR, a first lir account receive a /22, if a same entity open a second account, they only receive a /24. That prupose is to avoid some LIR with huge amount take all space and let's nothing for small LIR wo can't do. Actualy a /22 from RIPE cost 4800€ VAT EXCL (2 year + setup) , on market it's 15- 20K€ I know some company can have multiple entity to buy extra range. Some company is cheap to register like in UK. Maybe use company UBO registry obligation in EU can fight that ? Best regards Cedric Le 06-02-19 à 00:19, Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg a écrit :
I was unaware about this list limitation, but hope this helps... :-)
Regards, Carlos
========= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:18:45 From: Michael Kafka <mika@net-cat.at> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on this list, cannot reply to old topic
Hi everyone,
I'd like to join the discussion here on the list but I just registered so I can't reply to the existing topic and I don't want to start a new thread.
For the sake of a clean thread, can someone please reply to: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Thanks, MiKa
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:04:26 From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-02, "Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24" is now available for discussion.
This proposal aims to reduce the IPv4 allocation size to a /24 once the RIPE NCC is unable to allocate contiguous /22 ranges.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02
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 WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 5 March 2019.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Officer
Moin, am 06.02.2019 um 00:25 schrieb Cedric R via address-policy-wg:
Why not doing a prupose based on LIR, a first lir account receive a /22, if a same entity open a second account, they only receive a /24.
First: it just won't be "the same entity". While it may be the same actors, it's usually a separate legal entity, so no cookies. Second: as soon as the currently available IPv4 resources fell dry, there's an issue: by current policy, a new LIR is entitled to receive a /22 worth of addresses. If RIPE NCC cannot serve this at registration time, what happens then? AFAIKS this ist not yet covered by policy.
That prupose is to avoid some LIR with huge amount take all space and let's nothing for small LIR wo can't do.
Sorry to say this, but: that has been tried to avoid and proved to be "difficult" at best. One cannot prevent others from going corporate a dozen of times, each time setting up an LIR, each time taking a /something IPv4. Not easily, not without hurting legitimate newcomers.
Actualy a /22 from RIPE cost 4800€ VAT EXCL (2 year + setup) , on market it's 15- 20K€
Yes, but raising the RIPE membership fee to 10k/year would face other issues (like, being a non-profit, what to do with the surplus? Redistributing it to the members would just mean _entry_ is expensive, not _staying_) ...
I know some company can have multiple entity to buy extra range. Some company is cheap to register like in UK. Maybe use company UBO registry obligation in EU can fight that ?
RIPE Region does cover more than just EU (EU28 or EU27 doesn't matter here). Regards, -kai
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: (...)
I know some company can have multiple entity to buy extra range. Some company is cheap to register like in UK. Maybe use company UBO registry obligation in EU can fight that ?
RIPE Region does cover more than just EU (EU28 or EU27 doesn't matter here).
Precisely. As i understand it, any company in the world just needs to declare that has infrastructure within the RIPE NCC service region in order to access RIPE NCC services. I didn't check, but i've heard this doesn't work in the same way on the other four RIRs... I think changes to this can be addressed through the PDP, but someone has to issue the proposal for this to happen. Cheers, Carlos
Regards, -kai
participants (3)
-
Carlos Friaças -
Cedric R -
Kai 'wusel' Siering