Hi,

While I will admit it's a bit odd to allocate that much v6 space to a single entity, I don't see how this is going to cause issues based on what is currently happening, like this is not happening at scale.

Sure there might be a /21 (256x /29) of IPv6 space assigned to LIRs who already had a /29. but there are many large ISPs who alone have more space than this. Telia has a /20, China Telecom has a /16.

Additionally there is no real incentive to request multiple /29s other than very rare cases. unless LIRs requesting like 16x /29s are a common occurrence, this is a non issue imo.

disclaimer: I do have 3x /29 for a reason that may seem like a waste to some people and my specific issue could probably be solved by RIPE allowing me to split my /29 into /32s.

-Cynthia

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Hi all,

After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it deserves some discussion.

The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization.

We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?

In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ... not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs.

In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not really using it.

However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.

I clearly think this is not a good thing.

It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria, and exactly here:
b) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years.

So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not "verified" and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it verified are too small?

Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?

Other ideas?

Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra space may be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal activities and we have a responsibility on that as a community.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.