Hi Peter,
Il 09/05/2016 14:29, Peter Hessler ha
scritto:
On 2016 May 09 (Mon) at 14:19:43 +0200 (+0200), Riccardo Gori wrote:
:Hi Sander,
:
:Il 09/05/2016 10:42, Sander Steffann ha scritto:
:>Hello Ehsan,
:>
:>>we are agree about the Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal .
:>>https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
:>thank you for expressing your support. However, at this point in the discussion we have seen enough support but not enough work solving the objections that have een raised. That is what is needed currently to work towards consensus. Without addressing those objections this policy proposal gets stuck.
:Can you please summarize us the main objections about this 2015-05 policy so
:that people can try to address a solution to those?
My main objection to this proposal is simple: It depletes the available
pool for _new_ participants faster. I strongly believe any new actor
should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available
from RIPE. For an actor with non-zero addresses to get more addresses,
there is a secondary market.
Thi is yourrespectable opinion but my one is that actual allocation
rate is mainly due to new LIR sign up rate and in many cases they
are end users or customers.
Plase look when 2015-01 took place: nothing changed to the pool
allocation rate even if abusing stockpilers and seller are affected
by the fix.
This is beacuse of real needing of space, and as newcomer eveyone is
legitimate to reiceve its /22 but most of this cases are wasting a
lot of space 'cause of the sign up for small needings.
When I started my business late 2014 one of my fiber carrier said
"ask me for bandwidth and best prices but don't ask for address
space. Sign up and get your one"
Consider also that advicing customers to sign up as LIR in most
cases for a newcomer is also dealing with the probability to loose
the customers that
can handle everything by theirsefl.
As a newcomer nobody would say to his customer feel free to handle
everything 'cause I can't provide you the service.
This policy is so good in 2 main things:
- address the problem of customers make the customers giving new
entrants a little bit more space to handle their grow and customer
acquisition
- incentive the use IPv6. Again this is the ONLY policy that advice
LIRs to use IPv6 actually
Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a
middle ground can be met. Based on my understanding of the other
objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the
objection side.
I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any
solution can be proposed.
(note: my stance is based on forming a LIR simply to get any amount of
announcable addresses.)
I think the middle ground is paying annual fee per IPs in
registries. Don't you think?
I am happy that you appreciate the effort
--
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------