2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
Hi, On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:02:38PM +0100, James Blessing wrote:
On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
We're in discussion phase right now, so everything goes... :-) - this is really the phase where a proposal test the waters to see if it is generally acceptable (potentially with minor corrections), needs larger surgery, or is a total no-go... (As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space" and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date ;) ) gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi James, Gert, On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:02:38PM +0100, James Blessing wrote: >> On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote: >> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing >> the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? not a bad idea, I like it. > We're in discussion phase right now, so everything goes... :-) - this is > really the phase where a proposal test the waters to see if it is generally > acceptable (potentially with minor corrections), needs larger surgery, or > is a total no-go... let's collect the feedback and see if we need to come back with a second version. > > (As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how > many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space" > and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date ;) ) Let's not forget that the crystal ball is just that... a guess. Nobody can predict how long will the free pool last. - I hope this also answers Lu's question/comment. > gert cheers, elvis
I agree it is a guess, but also should be an easy estimation(not very accure one but rough one) if we taking burning rate of past 36 month into account. I think NCC can clearify this future. On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@velea.eu> wrote:
Hi James, Gert,
On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:02:38PM +0100, James Blessing wrote:
On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
not a bad idea, I like it.
We're in discussion phase right now, so everything goes... :-) - this is really the phase where a proposal test the waters to see if it is generally acceptable (potentially with minor corrections), needs larger surgery, or is a total no-go...
let's collect the feedback and see if we need to come back with a second version.
(As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space" and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date ;) )
Let's not forget that the crystal ball is just that... a guess. Nobody can predict how long will the free pool last. - I hope this also answers Lu's question/comment.
gert
cheers, elvis
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
On 20/10/2015 14:06, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of gert@space.net> wrote:
(As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space" and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date ;) )
Using the figures provided by RIPE earlier in the month [0] there were 6990 active LIRs with their final /22 on 1st October, of these 4383 (61.3%) signed up after 14th September 2012. So that's 4383 LIRs that would be able to request a further /22 every 18 months.
From the above report the allocation rate of v4 addresses is 8.5 /22s per day, 18 months after this policy gets implemented that might rise by 61.3% (the percentage of new LIRs with their final /22) to 13.7 /22s per day, it could then rise to 22.1 /22s per day 18 months after that.
Assuming that the policy gets implemented in January 2016 and the allocation rate increases as I've calculated above then RIPE would run out of IPs in May 2019, less than 4 years from now. Assuming all LIRs who have bothered to get their final /22 could get these additional /22s every 18 months then RIPE would run out in of v4 addresses in June 2018, less than 3 years from now. For these reasons I do not support this proposal. [0] - https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv4-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region-t hree-years-after-reaching-the-last-8 P.S. Apologies if our corporate mail server mangles this email. -- Duncan Scotland Plusnet plc | www.plus.net <http://www.plus.net/> Tel: 0114 220 0081 Registered Office: Plusnet | The Balance | 2 Pinfold Street | Sheffield | S1 2GU Registered in England no: 3279013 This email and any attachments contains Plusnet information, which may be privileged or confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you. We monitor our email system, and may record your emails.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 20/10/15 14:02, James Blessing wrote:
Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
I was thinking the very same, actually. If we're thinking that the current policy has been too conservative, it seems like we should be cautious not to swing too far in the other direction (too liberal). - -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWJj57AAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ667cIAKqXrjTZ6G8INUXbLWoyX9Si za3OLzLUUA1bXwMffhzXkPhbDx5LWSosXuuFOkys2J3UgyvSyAN2OPhdwoPteblN xr9RZUPaIkzhSLJEA+2tvABvW5OvCGJ298K8OnEjIWZpp/Oh/fsMbfETrqCE4nau GxbT8mIxWG9oqdrpAU1TuQces6AYasJvvcXK1bkvkTMTgurXqITuPjb+EaTasADE Reo4A0O9RnLgRVMElVcNP61DWNpZp/WOLSqBH8rlzI0nexySAZAvQteSnfDkL/vi YQcTQP6SNSD//aOp4MycRfj9QIHniyhpWRYH/+z0LJ+oxiHwwMpquSP3O9oWKhY= =gteR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Tom Hill <tom.hill@bytemark.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/10/15 14:02, James Blessing wrote:
Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
I was thinking the very same, actually.
If we're thinking that the current policy has been too conservative, it seems like we should be cautious not to swing too far in the other direction (too liberal).
Here's a thought experiment: Set aside a /12 pool for this particular purpose. This means that up to 1024 additional allocation requests may be made. It means that it is predictable, and according to those who complain the most about the strict policy, should be more than ample enough to handle those who think they need more IPv4 space. There would not need to be any further restrictions than those that are already in the policy and this proposal. Pro: - ensures that we don't accidentally "liberate" our RIR of its current pool - ensures that small actors get a bit more Con: - still unfair to greater LIRs - only a small pool, which risks being a "oh, cool, it's gone" experiment -- Jan
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:40, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
Here's a thought experiment:
Set aside a /12 pool for this particular purpose.
I would call this an "almost good" idea. "Almost", because /12 is too small. I would upgrade it to a "good idea" if it were a /11 or even a /10. Or at least "all recovered space since 2014-07-01", which is 1x /12 + 1x /13 + 1x /14 + whatever will follow (current estimate : 1 x /15). However, this will also de facto create an APNIC-style policy with 2 pools, which doesn't seem very popular around. But at the point where we are .... -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get a /16 randy
first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get a /16
I fully agree on that.. Erik -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Randy Bush Verzonden: dinsdag 20 oktober 2015 16:27 Aan: James Blessing <james.blessing@despres.co.uk> CC: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get a /16 randy
First names too... Regards Bob Sleigh -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais Sent: 20 October 2015 15:29 To: Randy Bush; James Blessing Cc: Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get a /16
I fully agree on that.. Erik -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Randy Bush Verzonden: dinsdag 20 oktober 2015 16:27 Aan: James Blessing <james.blessing@despres.co.uk> CC: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get a /16 randy NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s). If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose. We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. EE Limited Registered in England and Wales Company Registered Number: 02382161 Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.
On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
From the proposed text: 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation
Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a single /22?
Guten Tag,
On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
From the proposed text: 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation
Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a single /22?
According to the proposal I'd say yes ... of course, that's the basic use case of a pool - to use it. Anyway, maybe I have overlooked it, but there doesn't seem to be a provision as to whether an actual need is documented, e.g. less than 25% free of currently assigned space or less than 1 /24 available, whichever is less. -garry
Guten Tag,
On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
From the proposed text: 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation
Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a single /22?
According to the proposal I'd say yes ... of course, that's the basic use case of a pool - to use it.
Anyway, maybe I have overlooked it, but there doesn't seem to be a provision as to whether an actual need is documented, e.g. less than 25% free of currently assigned space or less than 1 /24 available, whichever is less. we did not intend to include need based criteria back to the IPv4
Hi Garry, On 10/20/15 4:12 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: policy. It would be very difficult. Imagine that I am an LIR and have a /22, this policy proposal is approved and I am using a /24 only. As there is no requirement for needs based justification, I can register a /23,/24 assignment to a 'potential' customer and delete it once I got the second /22 allocation. We could add in the policy that a small 'audit' (ARC) should be performed to verify that the LIR has recorded in the RIPE Database assignments for all the already used space. This way, we could help the registration goal.
-garry
cheers, elvis
Hello The Condition " 1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry." is very important to prevent abuse, however can the text be revised to say " 1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space to any other entity" pardon my ignorance but im confused by the exact meaning of "out of its registry" in the condtion 1, Thanks Tom Smyth On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> wrote:
On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
From the proposed text: 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation
Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a single /22?
-- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 --------------------------------- PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.
Hi, On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
From the proposed text: 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation
Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a single /22?
good question. Not sure what would happen if a single /22 is no longer available. My intention would be for the last allocation to be the remaining crumbs (even if less than a /22). Currently, the proposal's intention is to allow allocations lower than a /22 as long as the total would be 1024 IPs. regards, elvis
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:06, Peter Hessler wrote:
On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
From the proposed text: 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation
Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a single /22?
A /22 or equivalent. Given de structure of the remaining space, the "or equivalent" shouldn't may times (if ever). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Hello I signed up as a LIR one year ago.
LIRs that opened after 14 September 2012 can only have a /22 allocated by the RIPE NCC as per the current policy, which gives them a disadvantage compared to older LIRs that were able to obtain at least a /21 regardless of their needs.
I will support this proposal exactly because of this. Of course in my opinion IPv6 will not be deployed when the IPv4 pool isn't empty, because every provider will buy IPv4 space or open other LIRs to get more IPv4 addresses instead of deploying IPv6. Regards Marco Am 20.10.2015 14:46, schrieb Marco Schmidt:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on the other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would not support it.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 1:46 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:16, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on the other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would not support it.
5 years seems borderline even with existing policy. Then, in about 3 years APNIC and LACNIC would have probbaly run out dry (ARIN already did) and spill-over to RIPE area could be expected. Just look at the existing us.* LIRs having only 185 v4 address-space. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Based on current v6 deploy rate, my guess is in 5 years an new start up LIR would still appreciate a free /22 available for them.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 2:52 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:16, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote: Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on the other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would not support it.
5 years seems borderline even with existing policy. Then, in about 3 years APNIC and LACNIC would have probbaly run out dry (ARIN already did) and spill-over to RIPE area could be expected. Just look at the existing us.* LIRs having only 185 v4 address-space.
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Hi.
a. Arguments supporting the proposal Faster depletion of the free IPv4 pool may force the adoption of IPv6 on certain members.
But there is conflict with 2015-01, was accepted to prevent depletion of the free IPv4 pool, wasn't it? This case we have to create 2015-10 to cancel 2015-01, or change the text of this one. 2015-10-20 17:01 GMT+03:00 <h.lu@anytimechinese.com>:
Based on current v6 deploy rate, my guess is in 5 years an new start up LIR would still appreciate a free /22 available for them.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 2:52 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:16, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote: Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on the other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would not support it.
5 years seems borderline even with existing policy. Then, in about 3 years APNIC and LACNIC would have probbaly run out dry (ARIN already did) and spill-over to RIPE area could be expected. Just look at the existing us.* LIRs having only 185 v4 address-space.
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
-- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:18, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
But there is conflict with 2015-01, was accepted to prevent depletion of the free IPv4 pool, wasn't it?
2015-01 was published and adopted in order to prevent abuse... as is the "no outbound transfers" criteria for further allocations.
This case we have to create 2015-10 to cancel 2015-01, or change the text of this one.
Where do you see an incompatibility between the two ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:01, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
Based on current v6 deploy rate, my guess is in 5 years an new start up LIR would still appreciate a free /22 available for them.
My crystal ball ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QN-VW2U2rLiXn7uFvGt249mChXJ9Cjnq1Psy... ) has some doubts about it. ... and I can see that LIRs open (in oder to use IPv4 space for service not transfer) during the last 3 years have second thoughts after the inital joy of "we got a /22". -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Dear all, I like this new policy text. I would support it but I would add some text as follows [...] 3. An equivalent of a /22 allocation can be requested every 18 months from the moment of the last allocation if the following conditions are met: [...] 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its registry [...] regards Riccardo Il 20/10/2015 14:46, Marco Schmidt ha scritto:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 WIREM Fiber Revolution - Net-IT s.r.l. Via Emilia Ponente, 1667 47522 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 e-mail: info@wirem.net -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Emilia Ponente, 1667 - 47522 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote:
I would support it but I would add some text as follows
3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its registry [...]
Hi, This is something that could be done provided there are enough people "for" and not many people "against". Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
I am not yet convinced of this proposal in its entirety, but I am definitely against there being limitations based on LIR size of allocations (or age for that matter). If we are to do this, it should be for all LIRs without such limitation (though I might be ok with limits if addressing has been transferred from an LIR recently). An LIR with a /19 can have need. An LIR with a /10 equivalent can still have need. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN Sent: 20 October 2015 15:00 To: Riccardo Gori; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote:
I would support it but I would add some text as follows
3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its registry [...]
Hi, This is something that could be done provided there are enough people "for" and not many people "against". Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
Hi! I also support removing such limitation based on the reached size. I think its not fair. If LIR has /19 - does this mean he dont need more ip addresses? I think no. 20.10.2015 17:07, Dickinson, Ian пишет:
I am not yet convinced of this proposal in its entirety, but I am definitely against there being limitations based on LIR size of allocations (or age for that matter). If we are to do this, it should be for all LIRs without such limitation (though I might be ok with limits if addressing has been transferred from an LIR recently).
An LIR with a /19 can have need. An LIR with a /10 equivalent can still have need.
Ian
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN Sent: 20 October 2015 15:00 To: Riccardo Gori; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote:
I would support it but I would add some text as follows
3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its registry [...] Hi,
This is something that could be done provided there are enough people "for" and not many people "against".
Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ?
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
-- Best regards, Sakun Alexey IT department Infomir Ukraine tel. +380667955166
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:37, Sakun Alexey wrote:
Hi!
I also support removing such limitation based on the reached size. I think its not fair. If LIR has /19 - does this mean he dont need more ip addresses? I think no.
Hi, This is one of the reasons we didn't put that criteria in the initial version. On the other hand, with proper clean-up (which I realise is not something done regularily by most companies - LIR or not), a LIR having a /19 could recover more "no-loger-used" space than a LIR having only a /22 or a /21, and way less that a LIR having a /10 (which may under some circumstance recover the equivalent of a full /22 just by performing clean-up). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Hi, I tought the /8 policy was designed for new entrants. I can't see any new entrant owning a /21 or /20 or /19 or /16.... So well yes, I think there is a slightly difference from one old LIR to another (new entrant) LIR kind regards Riccardo Il 20/10/2015 16:37, Sakun Alexey ha scritto:
Hi!
I also support removing such limitation based on the reached size. I think its not fair. If LIR has /19 - does this mean he dont need more ip addresses? I think no.
20.10.2015 17:07, Dickinson, Ian пишет:
I am not yet convinced of this proposal in its entirety, but I am definitely against there being limitations based on LIR size of allocations (or age for that matter). If we are to do this, it should be for all LIRs without such limitation (though I might be ok with limits if addressing has been transferred from an LIR recently).
An LIR with a /19 can have need. An LIR with a /10 equivalent can still have need.
Ian
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN Sent: 20 October 2015 15:00 To: Riccardo Gori; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote:
I would support it but I would add some text as follows
3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its registry [...] Hi,
This is something that could be done provided there are enough people "for" and not many people "against".
Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ?
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 WIREM Fiber Revolution - Net-IT s.r.l. Via Emilia Ponente, 1667 47522 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 e-mail: info@wirem.net -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Emilia Ponente, 1667 - 47522 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi +1 for the proposal. To stop abuse, it should be prevented that people open 10 LIRs and merge them just after receiving the /22 (like at.prager-it-*). Regards Patrick On 20.10.2015 14:46, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hi all, (no hats) I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Remco * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space.
remco, you are cheating. you actually understand the last /8 policy. this is just the semi-annual squealing from piggies at the trough randy
Yes, agree. Nice summary. Not in favor. Best, Marty
On Oct 20, 2015, at 15:27, Remco van Mook <remco.vanmook@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
(no hats)
I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space.
For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.
Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.
Remco
* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Thanks Remco, for your clarity I'm against this proposal too Regards Bob Sleigh -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: 20 October 2015 15:38 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net; Remco van Mook Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Yes, agree. Nice summary. Not in favor. Best, Marty
On Oct 20, 2015, at 15:27, Remco van Mook <remco.vanmook@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
(no hats)
I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space.
For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won't make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won't happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we're still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.
Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.
Remco
* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s). If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose. We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. EE Limited Registered in England and Wales Company Registered Number: 02382161 Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.
I am against this proposal - with no particular hat on. (it reads like "we know we run out - so lets give it more speed so we run out faster"....) Wolfgang
On 20.10.2015, at 16:53, Sleigh, Robert <robert.sleigh@ee.co.uk> wrote:
I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:12:40 +0100, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote:
I am against this proposal - with no particular hat on. (it reads like "we know we run out - so lets give it more speed so we run out faster"....)
+1 Bonus points to Wolfgang for putting this more concisely than Remco. /Niall
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:12:40 +0100, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote:
I am against this proposal - with no particular hat on. (it reads like "we know we run out - so lets give it more speed so we run out faster"....)
+1 - I too am against this proposal. D. -- AirSpeed Telecom Support support@airspeed.ie : (01) 428 7530
As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8 policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable IPv4 space. While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough space, I have more sympathy for a business that has zero IP space and needs one. I am against this proposal. [1] Technically, the company had existed for a while with someone else's IP space, but for practical reasons, the company needed to have an allocation that belonged to it. On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 16:27:21 +0200 (+0200), Remco van Mook wrote: : :Hi all, : :(no hats) : :I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. : :For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won???t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won???t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we???re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. : :Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. : :Remco : :* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. :**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
Dear, all. I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on current resource number and age of the LIR. E.g. LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent Or First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc. I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good. 2015-10-20 17:46 GMT+03:00 Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>:
As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8 policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable IPv4 space.
While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough space, I have more sympathy for a business that has zero IP space and needs one.
I am against this proposal.
[1] Technically, the company had existed for a while with someone else's IP space, but for practical reasons, the company needed to have an allocation that belonged to it.
On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 16:27:21 +0200 (+0200), Remco van Mook wrote: : :Hi all, : :(no hats) : :I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. : :For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won???t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won???t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we???re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. : :Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. : :Remco : :* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. :**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
-- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29
W dniu 2015-10-20 o 16:56, Aleksey Bulgakov pisze:
Dear, all.
I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on current resource number and age of the LIR.
E.g. LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent Or First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc.
I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good.
Do you think, that the remaining space from last /8 is made of rubber? -- Tomasz Śląski pl.skonet
Of course, if you accept 2015-01 to prevent depletion and then 2015-05. 2015-10-20 18:00 GMT+03:00 "Tomasz Śląski @ KEBAB" <tom@kebab.org.pl>:
W dniu 2015-10-20 o 16:56, Aleksey Bulgakov pisze:
Dear, all.
I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on current resource number and age of the LIR.
E.g. LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent Or First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc.
I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good.
Do you think, that the remaining space from last /8 is made of rubber?
-- Tomasz Śląski pl.skonet
-- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29
That's not fair, but I would not object :) Tuesday, October 20, 2015, 4:56:20 PM, you wrote: AB> I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on AB> current resource number and age of the LIR. AB> E.g. AB> LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent AB> Or AB> First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc. -- Sergey
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear, all.
I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on current resource number and age of the LIR.
E.g. LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent Or First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc.
I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good.
I think the first suggestion will be an outright disaster. If I represented a LIR holding something around a /8 to a /10, I would jump on it and ensure that I was first in line. As would others with such large allocations. The second suggestion is hopeless, as it suggests an accelerated depletion, as well as guarantees that very soon, people will not be able to get the allocation size they request. As a matter of principle, I think the current and active policy is decent enough for new allocations. -- Jan
Hi, On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:56:20PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on current resource number and age of the LIR.
E.g. LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent Or First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc.
I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good.
<sarcasm> This is a nice idea. Some of the extra large LIRs holding a /10 or so today will then just eat up the last /8 in a few days, and we can stop discussing IPv4. </sarcasm> Really? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
And now I've had the proper time to consider this, I agree with Remco and object to this proposal. We should stick to the approach that allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in artificially shortening this period. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook Sent: 20 October 2015 15:27 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Hi all, (no hats) I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Remco * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 16:33, Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson@sky.uk> wrote:
We should stick to the approach that allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in artificially shortening this period.
+100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi all, I do not support this proposal. On 20/10/2015 17:33, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
And now I've had the proper time to consider this, I agree with Remco and object to this proposal. We should stick to the approach that allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in artificially shortening this period.
Agreed, this last being the main reason to oppose the proposal but I agree with many other reasons exposed, and in particular - - LIRs created after /8 policy did have the information to take decisions and if they did not manage to cope with this, I do not consider future LIR creation should be compromised to please them, - - uniform /22 distribution would be quite unfair and result in a big waste IMHO A much more interesting proposal to ease access of small opérators (not to say LIRs because LIRs are just distributors in my mind) would be to have the Ripe to regulate the transfer market via anonymization + fixed pricing (have it equivalent to a LIR creation cost for a /22) or IP garbage collection. Best regards, Sylvain - -- http://www.opdop.fr - mutualiser et interconnecter en coopérative Opdop - Société Coopérative d'Interêt Collectif sous forme de SARL sur IRC réseau geeknode #opdop - tél: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYnqWkACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGMnAEAjQUpMTKLmCzHLSAPSQIgFw4C ubb4Sbgo5p3YkUhYV7gA/iLWKAHUsQrKCLWJcwDZdpsKOy3wYJTgCDfMOyQy2Xgd =DGf8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi all,
(no hats)
I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few
Hi Remco, On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote: presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need more than the default /22. Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a similar policy and it seems to be working just fine.
For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months.
Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive? This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations already received.
I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via the transfer market is really high). - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.
Remco
* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
cheers, Elvis
On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need more than the default /22.
what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're out, ...?" remco said it well. the last /8 policy is designed so children born after this apocalypse have a few drops of milk to carry them through to where they can try to subsist on hard food. randy
what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're out, ...?"
Please, give away the last blocks of IPv4 so it really is gone for good.
what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're out, ...?" Please, give away the last blocks of IPv4 so it really is gone for good.
please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity. randy
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 23:02, Randy Bush wrote:
please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity.
And If I do it, do I get some extra space ? No. In the meanwhile remaining v4 space goes where most people can't even imagine.... -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On 20 Oct 2015, at 22:18, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 23:02, Randy Bush wrote:
please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity.
And If I do it, do I get some extra space ? No.
Yes you do. You get oodles of v6 space: way more than enough to run a network on the model of one IP address (or allocation) per customer. [So what's stopping you? Just go for it!] Applying that model to v4 addresses is no longer tenable or viable and hasn't been for a few years now. Get over it. Besides, there's no RIR policy -- or reason to have one -- which doles out extra v4 allocations to LIRs who deploy v6. For some definition of deploy. Feel free to suggest such a policy but please be prepared to back it up with hard data. BTW the "An LIR must have v6 to get their final /22 of v4" policy does not count in this context.
In the meanwhile remaining v4 space goes where most people can't even imagine....
Well there would still be a supply of v4 at the NCC which future generations might be able to exploit when they need to connect their IPv6 nets to any v4-only curiosities which might still be around 30+ years from now. That's the main justification behind the current /8 policy. That policy has consensus support in the RIPE region. And with good reason. If there's a compelling case to justify overturning current policy, it's not being made in 2015-05. I'm sure everyone here will be delighted to consider that case when someone presents a convincing argument which shows why the current policy is defective for the RIPE community as a whole. Over to you...
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:44:00PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
Besides, there's no RIR policy
correct
-- or reason to have one --
Isn't "provide an incentive to actually start deploying ipv6 services" a good enough reason? It is in my book. It certainly provides a much better reward than having 4 or 5 stars on the RIPEness page.
which doles out extra v4 allocations to LIRs who deploy v6.
If there's a compelling case to justify overturning current policy, it's not being made in 2015-05. I'm sure everyone here will be delighted to consider that case when someone presents a convincing argument which shows why the current policy is defective for the RIPE community as a whole. Over to you...
Please do not presume to speak for me or "everyone else" for that matter. Kind Regards, Sascha Luck
On 20 Oct 2015, at 23:38, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg@c4inet.net> wrote:
Isn't "provide an incentive to actually start deploying ipv6 services" a good enough reason? It is in my book.
There's nothing stopping you from writing up and submitting a policy proposal which does that. The reasons for the low levels of IPv6 deployment are many and complex. IMO it's highly improbable for tweaks or special incentives in RIR IPv4 allocation policy could be a significant factor. YMMV. That's probably a discussion for another forum than this list.
If there's a compelling case to justify overturning current policy, it's not being made in 2015-05. I'm sure everyone here will be delighted to consider that case when someone presents a convincing argument which shows why the current policy is defective for the RIPE community as a whole. Over to you...
Please do not presume to speak for me or "everyone else" for that matter.
I'm sorry for presuming that this WG welcomes and develops sound policy proposals. If that's no longer the consensus view of the WG, I apologise.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're out, ...?"
Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land. It IS over in ARIN-land (unless 23.128/10 ...). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Hi,
Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> het volgende geschreven:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're out, ...?"
Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint... The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new entrants. But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances. Cheers, Sander
I really envy to all of you that you have so much free time to write messages here during all day and increase noise. 21 окт. 2015 г. 18:48 пользователь "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> написал:
Hi,
Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> het volgende geschreven:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're out, ...?"
Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint...
The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new entrants.
But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
Cheers, Sander
Hi
On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:53 PM, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:
I really envy to all of you that you have so much free time to write messages here during all day and increase noise.
I won't call it noise, a mailing list are there for discussion things about certain topic, if you are not interested, you can unsubscribe.
21 окт. 2015 г. 18:48 пользователь "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> написал:
Hi,
Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> het volgende geschreven:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're out, ...?"
Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint...
The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new entrants.
But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
Cheers, Sander
On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:48 PM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi,
Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> het volgende geschreven:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're out, ...?"
Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint...
+1
The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new entrants.
How much of difference it will make for new entrants with this additional /22, and how much of potential impact by running out faster than we currently is will impact even future new entrants, I guess that are questions we really need to think about an answer.
But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
Cheers, Sander
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:49 PM Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@velea.eu> wrote:
Hi Remco,
Hi all,
(no hats)
I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few
On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote: presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need more than the default /22.
Doesn't everyone? There's a reason the minimum allocation size pre-runout was never smaller than a /21. As said, the purpose of final /8 is *not* to keep doing business as usual - those days are over and are never to return. Adding additional discontiguous prefixes form the final /8 pool to existing LIRs, aside from being bad engineering, does not provide a scalable solution; at the end of the race you now have two separate /22s and as you managed to run out of the first one, you'll run out of the second one as well. At the same time it's one less company that is able to get their own onramp to the IPv4 internet.
For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space
Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a similar policy and it seems to be working just fine. probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months.
A /22 every 18 months will give 'newish' LIRs (but not the 'newest') a single extra /22. Come round 2, there will be none to be had. To me, this looks like an extra final cigarette when you resolved to stop smoking. The policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the one allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already.
Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time
could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive? This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations already received.
It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or so. There's another word for companies that keep new entrants out, but I'm pretty desperate to keep that word out of this discussion. Legislation takes a dim view.
I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via the transfer market is really high). - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.
Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for competition. Best, Remco
On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, remco van mook <remco.vanmook@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:49 PM Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@velea.eu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','elvis@velea.eu');>> wrote:
Hi Remco,
Hi all,
(no hats)
I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few
On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote: presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need more than the default /22.
Doesn't everyone? There's a reason the minimum allocation size pre-runout was never smaller than a /21. As said, the purpose of final /8 is *not* to keep doing business as usual - those days are over and are never to return. Adding additional discontiguous prefixes form the final /8 pool to existing LIRs, aside from being bad engineering, does not provide a scalable solution; at the end of the race you now have two separate /22s and as you managed to run out of the first one, you'll run out of the second one as well. At the same time it's one less company that is able to get their own onramp to the IPv4 internet.
For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space
Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a similar policy and it seems to be working just fine. probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months.
A /22 every 18 months will give 'newish' LIRs (but not the 'newest') a single extra /22. Come round 2, there will be none to be had. To me, this looks like an extra final cigarette when you resolved to stop smoking. The policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the one allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already.
Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in
time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive? This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations already received.
It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or so. There's another word for companies that keep new entrants out, but I'm pretty desperate to keep that word out of this discussion. Legislation takes a dim view.
I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via the transfer market is really high). - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.
Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for competition.
On the other hand, why not over is over, even a bit v4 is wasted in the end in a world of v6, who cares?
Best,
Remco
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via the transfer market is really high). - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.
Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for competition.
I totally agree with Remco except this point. I know a large european telco that already has bought ~ 2 million IPs so they would be able to justify the need for a very large chunk. And, besides that the "justified need" was never something objective, it was easy to manipulate. We should just say goodbye to needs period and stick with one bread each so there's enough for everyone. Ciprian
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:35 PM Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:
I totally agree with Remco except this point. I know a large european telco that already has bought ~ 2 million IPs so they would be able to justify the need for a very large chunk. And, besides that the "justified need" was never something objective, it was easy to manipulate. We should just say goodbye to needs period and stick with one bread each so there's enough for everyone.
I think I was very specific in saying it is a bad idea for a whole bunch of other reasons, but if you want to touch 'additional allocations for LIRs' at all, it would be the one somewhat feasible option. Which is all the more reason why any proposal to this end is a bad idea. Best Remco
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 21:29, remco van mook wrote:
The policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the one allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already.
Which seemed right as long as there was a "needs requirement" and I belived (many people still do) that it was taken seriously. It also seemed right until you woke up 30 months later with more than one /8 in the free pool. For many people also seemed right as long as they were not aware that piles of unused v4 blocks will go "on the market", including those allocated via "last /8 policy". That looks like too much.
It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or
It's also anti-competitive to keep out people who are looking to sign up in 2021. All that time you just kept in the dark corner other people that already signed up (after 09/2012, but not only).
Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for competition.
Returned ? After everything has been done to promote the address-space market ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, remco van mook wrote:
I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via the transfer market is really high). - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.
Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for competition.
Yes. That was my idea as well, when we were discussing the last /8 policy: that I would have liked to have a "last /8 policy" to be about the "last /8", i.e. 185/8 and then the possible other free pool could have been treated differently. But now this seems all overtaken by events and we have left what we have left. The major result of this proposal is likely to be an empty free pool and the broker market as the only market. I do not support this policy. Cheers, Daniel _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 14:57, Daniel Stolpe wrote:
Yes. That was my idea as well, when we were discussing the last /8 policy: that I would have liked to have a "last /8 policy" to be about the "last /8", i.e. 185/8 and then the possible other free pool could have been treated differently.
Not sure that separating pools would have made things easier to accept. Some people gave me their opinions about this issue, and at that time (~6 weeks ago) there was only 1 (one) voice in favour of having separate pools. But again, if this makes it easier to pass, having distinct pools (newcomers & further allocations, 185/8 and recovered, ...) is an option for me as a proposer. Personally, I'm even in favour.
The major result of this proposal is likely to be an empty free pool and the broker market as the only market.
We will get there anyway. Worst things is that we (RIPE community) kickstarted this market too early. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Dear address-policy-wg, This seems like a bad idea indeed. This proposal suffers from a number of shortcomings and side-effects: - It takes us off-message on IPv6 and creates the illusion that IPv4 address availability is elastic and negotiable. Any relaxation of the last /8 allocation criteria can and will be used in boardrooms throughout the industry to re-prioritise IPv6 deployment back from a need to a want, prolonging the transition process. - We are incapable of reliably forecasting the future, and relaxation of the last /8 allocation criteria will eat into the "buffer space" available to us for reacting to new technologies and unforeseen events (far fetched example: the need to rebuild and renumber large portions of infrastructure following a natural disaster while the status of previously assigned resources is being determined) - The impact of relaxing the allocation criteria in this fashion amounts to "bridge burning" behind the latest entrants to the market. The primary benefactors from this policy would be recent small and mid-sized players at the expense of any future entrants. For larger players, the increased availability will remain insufficient to influence the business case. Firm -1 toward this initiative. The last /8 allocation criteria is there to ensure an orderly transition is possible for as long as possible, and the fact we now expect it to last longer than originally anticipated is further demonstration of its efficacy. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 20/10/15 16:27, Remco van Mook wrote:
Hi all,
(no hats)
I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space.
For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.
Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.
Remco
* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hi David, * David Monosov <davidm@futureinquestion.net>
The last /8 allocation criteria is there to ensure an orderly transition is possible for as long as possible, and the fact we now expect it to last longer than originally anticipated is further demonstration of its efficacy.
I'm not really certain if we can expect it to last longer than originally anticipated, even. I suppose it depends on what one anticipated in the first place. I anticipated (or hoped, rather) for a duration of about 10 years. The best analysis of its remaining lifetime that I'm aware of is the recently published RIPE Labs article¹ which suggests a remaining lifetime of approx. ~5½ years (and this includes future piecemeal allocations from IANA and expected returns from the membership). [1] https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv4-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region-th... If accurate, that would mean the total lifetime of the somewhat misleadingly named «last /8» policy would end up being ~8½ years. 1½ years less than the 10 I had originally hoped for. There is no doubt that 2015-05 would reduce the remaining life expectancy of the «last /8» policy even further. Considering that the "last /8" is already expected to last for a shorter time than what I had hoped for, I cannot support 2015-05. Tore
Hi, considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market - I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a "fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup, only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over 1000 right now is definitely a pain!) So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than the /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.: Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22 to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18 months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the IPs most. Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place. I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong) to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full /22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall cost or even turning a profit ... -garry
Hi, Considering that many LIRs(if not all) certainly do need extra IPv4 space, I'd assume that all of them would ask for the extra /22. This will lead to very fast IPv4 depletion, which was exactly what the "last /8" policy tried to avoid. In my opinion we shouldn't care how strict or relaxed is our policy against the other RIRs'. We just need to make sure some IPv4 space will be available to new entrants for the next few years. The fact that the current pool is more than 99% of the equivalent of a /8, is an indication that the "last /8" policy works quite well and we shouldn't relax it. For these reasons I don't support this proposal. -- George On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Garry Glendown <garry@nethinks.com> wrote:
Hi,
considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market - I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a "fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup, only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over 1000 right now is definitely a pain!)
So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than the /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.:
Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22 to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18 months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the IPs most.
Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place.
I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong) to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full /22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall cost or even turning a profit ...
-garry
Hello, I'm completely agree with Remco. The intentions and goals of this proposal is completely unclear and won't change anything for the better for all members of the Internet community, but prevents the future entrants making their way into the Big Net. And - NO - it won't help to deploy IPv6. I'm against the proposal as a whole. Regards, Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:27 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Hi all, (no hats) I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won’t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won’t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we’re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Remco * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
3. An equivalent of a /22 allocation can be requested every 18 months from the moment of the last allocation if the following conditions are met: 1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry.
Is this to be interpreted as: a) the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry or b) the LIR has not registered any IPv4 address space transfer out of its registry? Option b is enforceable but largely pointless. Option a is unenforceable because if the LIR chooses not to register the transfer, then there is no way for the RIPE NCC to conclusively prove that a transfer has happened and thus to deny the new allocation. This proposal as it stands will put selective pressure on LIRs to implement hidden transfer agreements and then to tell lies to the RIPE NCC in order to justify getting more IP address space. This is not good stewardship of resources. Nick
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:40, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Is this to be interpreted as:
a) the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry
or
b) the LIR has not registered any IPv4 address space transfer out of its registry?
Option b is enforceable but largely pointless.
Not really. Unless you assume that 100% of LIRs have evil intentions.
Option a is unenforceable because if the LIR chooses not to register the transfer, then there is no way for the RIPE NCC to conclusively prove that a transfer has happened and thus to deny the new allocation.
This proposal as it stands will put selective pressure on LIRs to implement hidden transfer agreements and then to tell lies to the RIPE NCC in order to justify getting more IP address space. This is not good stewardship of resources.
If the transfer source does not register the transfer, the transfer destination (the one that pays) may not agree - it requires much more legal paperwork in order to ensure that ressources somehow "belong" to the one that pays. Pretty much like selling a company but not registering anywhere the sale (ok, in that case the registration info may not be public). Another thing, how do you define a "hidden transfer" ? Some LIRs do have assignments from other LIRs that they announce in the global table with their own AS. Those IPs still "belong" to the LIR having the superblock even if the superblock is not announced. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On 21/10/2015 21:57, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
Another thing, how do you define a "hidden transfer" ? Some LIRs do have assignments from other LIRs that they announce in the global table with their own AS. Those IPs still "belong" to the LIR having the superblock even if the superblock is not announced.
you need to address these questions to the authors of the proposal because as it stands, it's ambiguous and open to a wide variety of interpretations. Nick
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
At last one I can +1 without much headache. The idea is not to still have the most unused ipv4 space when ipv6 is finally the default. rgds, Sascha Luck
Hi, As most of you will know, Im +1 to this proposal. Only one question about 5.1.3 An equivalent of a /22 allocation can be requested every 18 months from the moment of the *last allocation* if the following conditions are met: Last allocation in general or from RIPE NCC? Kind Regards, El 20/10/2015 a las 14:46, Marco Schmidt escribió:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hello, I'm strongly *against* this proposal. There's no need for change. It's just about plundering - just because others (RIRs) plunder. It's bad strategy in long-term perspective. I see quite often end-users ignoring even (old) RFC 1519 and making requests in style "I need X C-blocks" without any objective reason. And it's LIR's responsibility to streamline such requests. Even running many SSL websites isn't objective for getting more IP addresses in these days (as we have SNI already and old crypto protocols are getting retired), CGN is also there and so on... IPv4 *is* almost gone, and I don't see any logical reason to speedup this to "finally gone" phase. With regards, Daniel On 20.10.2015 14:46, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hi, I'm against this proposal. It seems that economic interests are the main reason for that. From my personal point of view: with IPv6 there is a good replacement solution to connect network devices. So there is no need to offer IPv4 addresses in a larger amount from the RIR. Best, Carsten -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 14:47 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
* Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> [2015-10-20 14:51]:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
FWIW I oppose this proposal. People are starting to feel the pain of IPv4 running out (as was foretold for the last decade) and I'm sorry for them but there is no cure (in the IPv4 world). The last /8 policy is doing what it's supposed to do. It was never supposed to satisfy peoples IPv4 demand, it is supposed to provide an absolute minimum of IPv4 for things like CGNAT and external services. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
participants (46)
-
"Tomasz Śląski ＠ KEBAB" -
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Ciprian Nica -
Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) -
Daniel Stolpe -
Daniel Suchy -
David Monosov -
Denis Fondras -
Dickinson, Ian -
Donal Cunningham -
dscotland＠plus.net -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Erik Bais -
Garry Glendown -
George Giannousopoulos -
Gert Doering -
h.lu＠anytimechinese.com -
Hannigan, Martin -
James Blessing -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Jim Reid -
LIR (BIT I 5) -
Lu Heng
-
Marco Näf -
Marco Schmidt -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
Patrick Velder -
Peter Hessler -
poty＠iiat.ru -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -
Randy Bush -
Remco van Mook -
remco van mook
-
Riccardo Gori -
Sakun Alexey -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Sergey Myasoedov -
Sleigh, Robert -
Sylvain Vallerot -
Tom Hill -
Tom Smyth -
Tore Anderson -
Wolfgang Tremmel