- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Draft agenda for RIPE 72
by Sander Steffann 13 May '16

13 May '16

Hi APWG folks, Below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Copenhagen in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 25, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 25, 11:00 - 12:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. So far, the agenda is fairly light - if you have something you want to address, or that bothers you, let us know and we make room for you :-) The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Sander Steffann, Gert Döring, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection C. Current Policy Topics Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO F. Discussion of open policy proposals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back G. Market concentration in the transfers of IPv4 space Alain Durand and Gabe Fried D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service Andrea Cima Y. Open Policy Hour The Open Policy Hour is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity. Z. AOB

1 0

Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05
by Martin Huněk 11 May '16

11 May '16

Hello, I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05. In my opinion, this might even slow down depletion rate of 185/8. But it does not cover all cases of cheating the system. You all probably know better then me that if you want to get larger address space, the easiest way (and probably the cheapest) is to make new LIR, pay for 2 years and then transfer all its resources to your main LIR and close the new one. The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little bit, but still some space for cheating remains. I would like to see minor change in policy, such like that LIR could not transfer IPv4 resources from pool 185/8 to another LIR (or its sponsored organizations) so that receiving LIR (and its sponsored organizations) would held more than /22 in 185/8 pool. That way, it would not matter how many LIR you open, when you close LIR you would not be able to transfer resources to any of your other LIRs (in RIR region), so it would had to be returned to RIPE for new comers. Other than that, I agree with proposed policy change (2015-05). It might reduce the need for cheating system by offering the official way to expand LIRs pools, with motivation to start using IPv6 as well as limiting LIRs to monetize their (in 4 and a half years) pools so they can reach /20. Sincerely Martin Hunek Freenet Liberec, z.s.

12 19

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
by Randy Bush 11 May '16

11 May '16

you may find reading the actual last /8 policy informative. > Last /8 is not really get affected by this policy. > - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space > outside 185/8 this is misleading or just sadly misinformed last /8 is not an address range, it is a state reached once the ncc had only that address range and continues on irrespective of additions or subtractions of space to the ncc's pool. randy

4 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement
by Arash Naderpour 10 May '16

10 May '16

Hi Sebastian, I understand your point but please consider that setting up a new LIR does not mean you are immediately eligible to receive additional /22. - allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request - Allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. And you cannot transfer out your /22 for 2years, So affection to the depletion rate looks less than setting up multi LIR to receive immediately an /22 from 185/8 or encouraging small businesses in need of small blocks to become LIR. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Sebastian Benoit [mailto:benoit-lists@fb12.de] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 5:07 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc(a)parsun.com> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement Hi, Arash Naderpour(arash_mpc(a)parsun.com) on 2016.05.09 23:25:56 +1000: > Hi, > > This policy may actually reduce the depletion rate for last /8, but > without it the last /8 can be used more day by day. > In the real world, even when a customer needs for example an /24, they > need to become an LIR (and get the /22 from the last /8) as their old > LIR cannot provide them with additional blocks. That also speed up the > depletion of last / 8. have you considered these when you made your objection? > > This policy is not increasing the demand for IPv4, It creates a > possibility for small LIRs to receive additional blocks (not from last > /8) based on some conditions, so no change in depletion rate from my point of view. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that 2015-05 will increase the depletion rate, not only because more address space will be handed out, but because it will make it more attractive (from a financial point of view) to set up a new LIR when you get more than a /22 out of it. That is, it might make the secondary market less attractive.

3 2

2015-05 proposal
by Fabio Zannicolò - Voix s.r.l. 09 May '16

09 May '16

Hi, I would like to share with you my opinion on Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal (2015-05). Today small companies have competitiveness problems due to lack of IPv4 resources. I consider unfair the current treatment, the big companies have stocks of IPv4 addresses. We need a balance between resource conservation and fair treatment, in addition to those already proposed my suggestions are: -allocations of a /22 every 18 months only from IPv4 Addresses Available Outside 185/8 to small LIRs (if LIR own < /20 of total allocations) -leave the current policy only for IPv4 Addresses Available in 185/8 to avoid the too fast depletion of resources -the addresses acquired with this system should not be able to be transferred for a long period of time to avoid profit Best regards, Fabio Zannicolò

3 3

Disabuse
by Rayanravesh Sena 07 May '16

07 May '16

Hi, My name is Borhan Habibi and my company name is Rayanravesh Sena, I sent my first email without noticing it has wrong from address field, so thought it would be better to resend it with my own name. I'm just one person, Hope it is clear to you and any one else got confused, Borhan Habibi

2 1

Support the 2015-05 Policy
by Rayanravesh Sena 06 May '16

06 May '16

I think this policy is fair, i support it. With luck, Borhan Habibi

2 1

additional /22
by Rayanravesh Sena 06 May '16

06 May '16

+1 2015-05

1 0

I support this policy
by info＠rivebit.com 05 May '16

05 May '16

I support this policy

3 3

additional /22
by Mojtaba Abolhasani 05 May '16

05 May '16

+1 to 2015-05

1 0