Good Morning Remco, Good Morning List, with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8 policy. We are dealing with the same amount of space as September 2012 that in the meanwhile has been abused in several ways and there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption. There was only one requirement to obtain one IPv4 /22: request and obtain at least from /32 IPv6 to a maximum of /29 IPv6. Am I wrong or this requirement has been removed?!?! Please explain that to a new entrant... What does it mean? "we are running out. here your crumbs, sorry we have no solution" ?!? If for you last /8 policy is a success to me IPv6 incentives policies looks absent. We completly failed from this point of view. If you look at this where IPv4 exhaustion took place IPv6 is strongly gowing: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it to grow. kind regards Riccardo Il 15/04/2016 00:50, remco van mook ha scritto:
Dear colleagues,
I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now.
The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal.
Kind regards,
Remco (no hats)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.
Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - 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
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>>.
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 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
