On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 14:50, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years
> with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22".

I find the situation a little more complex than that:
- First, the "in a few years with no IPv4" is not so far away. Even
with current policy, it is for 2020, with a lot of chance 2021. With
the proposal, worst case scenario is that we MAY loose up to 18 months
(more likely something in the 6-12 months range ). Which is not
completely sure (as Martin Huněk noted a few messages ago).
- Second, right now the NCC is just handing out /22 to whoever can pay
for them (with only a small extra administrative restriction during the
last 6 months). For me this is plain "selling IP addresses" (concept
that the NCC avoided like hell int the past), and it is also defeating
the "keep space for later entrants" purpose. No need check (as in "do
you really need that space" *), no requirement to deploy IPv6 of any
kind, just a simple "pay to have it".

This could be solved without introducing yet another way to deplete the remaining pool.

The problem with 2015-05, is its similarity to how certain acts of Congress in the US come to pass:

You bundle what you want with something else, to sweeten the deal.

So here is how you can fix the deadlock:

Unbundle. Split the proposal in two parts.

Part A: Additional requirements for IPv4 allocations

Part B: Additional periodical IPv4 allocations for existing LIRs

This would, for instance, make it easy for me to say "yes" to part A, and "no" to part B, instead of "no" to the entire package.

Jan