Hi Richard, On 9/26/13 11:44 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
Dear all,
I support the general direction of this proposal. If it included v4, I would still be in favor.
I didn't even dare touching v4 right now even though I agree that this policy proposal is a good exercise for what should happen in the near future with v4 as well.
That being said, I am not sure about the prefix sizes listed in this proposal. According to section 5.1.2 of the new text, everyone will receive at least a /32 unless the addresses will be used for a special purpose as per section 6. In this case, allocations can be made in allocations of /48:
* Operating a TLD: 1-4 * /48 * Operating an ENUM: 1-4 * /48 * Operating an IXP: 1 * /48 * Operating a DNS root server: 1 * /32
There are three concerns with this:
1) Assuming everyone will get at least a /32, why limit core internet infrastructure, i.e. TLDs, ENUMs, and IXPs to a mere /48? The combined amount of those allocations will be dwarfed by the combined amount of LIRs and End Users.
These were restrictions that existed in the previous version and things seemed to work well with these restrictions/sizes. I hear you and if others think the same, we could change the limits.
2) While there are a _lot_ of addresses with IPv6, handing a multi-homed End User who will be able to operate on a single /48 for the foreseeable future a whole /32 appears to be wasteful. Maybe that's v4 speaking through me, but still...
Well, someone that does not plan to make any sub-allocations or anyone that still thinks that a /48 will be large enough for the foreseeable future can request a /48. A /32 is provided by default though, so I would not see many organisations specifically requesting a /48 and not the default /32. see 5.1.2: "5.1.2 Initial Allocation Size [...] /48 allocations can be made by the RIPE NCC to End Users that do not expect to ever need more or for special purposes. Special purposes are covered in section 6 of this policy. When an organisation requests a /48 allocation, it must specifically mention in its request that it does not plan to use anything larger in the foreseeable future."
3) Becoming a LIR costs several thousand Euros up front and then per year. Not being a LIR and simply getting the same /32 will, under current pricing schemes, cost €50. Becoming a LIR would become an extremely stupid business move over night. This means the existing LIRs will be stuck with paying whatever price increases happen over the years. That, in turn, means LIRs will start trying to redistribute the cost. And _that_ will become ugly very quickly.
That was our main concern, so.. I already approached a few of the Board Members to discuss this policy proposal and at least announce them that this is coming. My idea was that while the AP-WG can not do anything about the fees (these are decided by AGM) we (the proposers) can discuss during the AGM our following idea: - if the policy proposal gets good feedback from the community, it would be a great exercise to ask the RIPE NCC (Board) to calculate how much would a /32 cost if the prices would be leveled.. - if the price can not be leveled yet, see how much would the membership fee decrease if the non-LIRs would pay double the current price (100€) or 500% more (250€), or something around that price.
I am not saying my suggested answers are perfect, but my gut feeling tells me that while the distinction between "this is PA, hand it to your customers" and "this is PI, don't you dare using it for anyone but yourself" does not make sense, there should still be a distinction between "we need a few v6 addresses" and "we need a lot v6 addresses".
I agree, and that is why someone can request a '/48' or a '/32 or larger'
Two possible approaches:
* Non-LIR allocations could be limited to a single aggregated equivalent of, e.g. a /40 or /41. If someone needed more, let them become a LIR.
I had this idea initially. But, then how do we determine how large should this allocation be? By taking an arbitrary number? What if this number is not longer the right number in 2 years?
* Do away with the flat fee of €50 per Independent Number Resource and charge based on size. This would also somewhat prevent people from grabbing as much IP space as possible.
I think this is where we should be looking at. Try to get the 'price per /32' to be equal (or almost equal) to both members and non-members. You get a block, you pay the same price for it whether you are a member or not. Maybe not immediately, maybe not in the next 2-3 years.. but this should be the goal for the future. However, I remember that 'charging per prefix size' discussion did appear in some of the previous policy proposals and if I remember correctly we were told that if the RIPE NCC were to charge based on prefix size, it may lose it's not-for-profit status that it has with the Dutch authorities. We need to be careful so that we do not affect RIPE NCC's status and activity.
As an aside, reading [1] is needlessly hard. There are several sections where text on the left-hand side does not appear on the right-hand side. New text on the right-hand side is marked in blue; disappearing text on the left-hand side is not marked in any way. This is yet another reminder of why migrating to plain text with an automated storage and diffing back-end ASAP will be a Good Thing.
I agree, but let's keep this discussion in the ncc-services-wg, please.
Richard
[1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/other-documents/draft-ipv6-address-allocation...
cheers, Elvis