Sylvain, I wasnt lecturing, just outlining my postion, the point of the policy is that is is a form of reprieve to allocate more Ipv4 resources to Lirs, and I think that any Lir as I have said before that have benefited from merging with another lir to get Ip address space to assign to end users or other wise, shouldnt be allowed to benefit from this policy. I hope in this context you understand my position Thanks Tom Smyth On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Sylvain Vallerot < sylvain.vallerot@opdop.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 23/10/2015 16:51, Tom Smyth wrote:
The policy is centered around LIRs
Which is the basis of your further deductions, but I disagree with this first statement. I do not means it is not the case, nor deeply understood as this, I just disagree on the relevance of this lecture regarding to the spirit and goal of the last /8 policy.
LIRs are delegated some authority from the RIR (that is delegated authority from ARIN), LIRs are not those who are supposed to use the ressources in the End. So distribution of ressources to LIRs is a wrong perspective, the goal being to have ressources available to End Users, the last /8 that limits available ressources to a /22 per LIR would be better deserving their goal by fixing some ressource quantity to be available to End Users. Of course, this is difficult to do, and most participants here seem not to consider the difference between LIR and operator/end user.
So according to the last /8 policy goal (spirit if not letter), LIRs merging to get End Users to be able to access some little ressources is perfectly legitimate.
We as a cooperative LIR do no use ressources for ourselves, but for End Users only, so as a LIR, being limited to a /22 is not relevant to us, because it just has the effect to limit the number of End Users that can have access to a minimal part of the IPv4 last bits to bootstrap. Is it the goal of this policy ? No it is not.
So to allow new comers to emerge (with a single /24 sometimes) the only possible way today is (several of) them to create a new LIR together and later merge it to ours. And this does perfect sense if last /8 policy is there to allow newcomers to emerge.
You thinking as LIR = End User having a /22 means a /22 per newcomer. When you have in mind that a /22 is a potential of 4 x /24 end users instead, then you deserve the last /8 policy 4 times as much.
Maybe limiting the M&A to PAs containing space already assigned to enough independent (maybe even routable, with an ASN ?) operators, and garanteed to remain so for quite a long time) would be fine.
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
iF4EAREIAAYFAlYqUq0ACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGnowEAkJ9DTr65tpRap+4tTLTfO+jK 2wXLItRWhxFWnw2t3U4A/j6d7Hb3nJKSQN72lSGCsEHq0QSxSFSIXPL9KvxGbIo8 =N+ff -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 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.