Hi, On Sat, 30 Sep 2017, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017, at 13:21, Carlos Friaças wrote:
- forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already, and possibility to make things even worse (by creating new pretext for "longer than /24 in GRT").
Any prefix can be split into /24s and still remain globally routable.
Going beyond /24 is really not in this proposal. A new proposal would be needed for that...
The issue is not with what it's in the proposal, the issue is the consequences, direct or indirect.
Do you mean people need to agree or disagree with what is _not_ in this proposal?
I would also add some other reasons: - community's duty/responsibility for future generations : apart what it has already been discussed (get v4 on the market, get it from upstream, or even "really need to get v4 ?"), we are representing here the RIP*E* community, with limited geographical scope. However, the policy is quite lax at the moment concerning the out-of-region use of resources, basically allowing an out-of-region entity to get resources with a sole promise to use *some* of them in-continent.
If you disagree with the current "lax" status, why not build a new proposal? We don't need to address everything with just one proposal...
This a simplist (almost childish) answer to a more complex issue.
No need to go into "insult-mode". I was merely suggesting new proposals are always a possibility.
Even if we start with only the "out-of-region" issue, we will quickly get into the needs-based check, which I have been explained several times by several people that it can no longer work in RIPE-land.
Yes, needs-based checks will not work. But i'm probably missing something: current status is everyone gets one last /22 with no questions asked; the proposal aims to change that into a /24, still with no questions asked. Unless i'm not seeing something, the proposal doesn't really try to (re-)introduce needs-base checks.
There is also the issue of what should happen with those not respecting the policies.
Address space returning to RIPE's pool...?
Right now we seem to be in a situation where we have laws but no police.
There is no procedure that allows someone to identify something strange and then report it to the NCC, so they can evaluate it? I've googled a bit, and found this... https://www.ripe.net/report-form Never used it, though :-)
Should we continue on that direction (more laws, still no police)
2017-03, is not about a new "rule". It's about changing an existing rule.
or should we just remove the root cause for breaking the law (removing the law may also be an option - even if not really the best) ?
I don't believe in "no rules". Otherwise, i wouldn't be co-authoring a policy proposal :-)
It's a valid viewpoint. I would also agree with "less lax", but that would be a different proposal.
I would support such a proposal, but I doubt that it will have the expected effect in the short-medium term.
First step is to build it, then search for its approval. And yes, the PDP doesn't work by just snapping fingers :-)
I can also agree with that, but it's just a matter of sizing it. If v2.0, v3.0, v4.0, ... is eventually approved/adopted, it may be that there isn't a /12 to do this anymore... So, we really didn't focus in the task of establishing barriers/boundaries. But we might consider this for v2.0, if it helps. :-)
So I'll wait a "better" v2.0 .... or v3.0, or v4.0 ...... :)
There is a lot of input already. But let's see how it goes. Cheers, Carlos
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN