Hi Carten,

Il 17/04/2016 23:59, Carsten Schiefner ha scritto:
Riccardo,

On 15.04.2016 07:48, Riccardo Gori wrote:

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

so it works as designed me thinks.
It depends on the point of view, we are discussing this exactly beacause everyone of us can have his point.
RIR are supposed to act as a registry and distribute resources. How resources are distributed depends on community.
This is exacly why RIR have to accept comments in PDP from non members and from everyone else in the world.
What if just a mass of people come here and propose to adopt ARIN similar policy?
Policy Development Process is: I would/think; You would/think; He would/think
and finally: We do...shouldn't be like that?
Resources are global you can't say ARIN was wrong because depleted faster entered and we are successfull  just because we still have space.
About IPv6 adoption sorry but the fact is that we are later than ARIN.
Don't misunderstant please I am not in favor of depletion. 


that in the meanwhile has been abused in several ways

Please define "abuse in several ways". You are also encouraged to
suggest potential remedies per item.
Several ways include repeated and reiterated procedures like these:
- cases of LIRs requested and obtained (before 09/2012 and last /8 policy) resources with fake network plans (now you don't need any network plan)
- in the past (I mean before 09/2012 and last /8 policy) some organizations running multiple LIR used it to obtaion space as big as /16 on the same day in two different LIRs
- in Last /8 multiple LIRs used to obtain resources and sell resources to the market preocess reiterated and (stopped by 2015-01)
- open and closing LIR to stockpile resources (stopped by 2015-01)
Please note that new allocation rate of /22 from 185/8 reamins unchanged due to new LIR signin up at the same rate or faster.
Our policy is suppose to reduce new LIR sign up rate allowing current new entrants to not incentive their customers to sign up as a new LIR and waste a /22 and offer them just the space they need.

and there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption.

How about: making your Internet outfit future-poof? Sounds pretty
convincing to me.

Carten, as proposers, we didn't pretend to have "the solution".
The proposal contains something we believe in and here we tried to push some incentive to adopt IPv6 for smaller LIRs as you can understand from the text.
Please read carefully the BOARD consideratios in 2014-04 that removed the only IPv6 requisite on current policy https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-04
Now you can get your IPv6 t-shirt as noticed by Radu.
About future proof internet: it's easy to say that nothing is future proof but human mind is awsome and when we get in trouble in most cases we were able to find a way out.
If it were up to me I would approve NAT in IPv6 and I would use those famouse unusable 16 /8 (for future use 240/8 - 255/8) but this is out of topic here, thank you for asking my point anyway.

kind regards
Riccardo



Best,

	-C.

-- 
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------