Greetings! As additional information for oppose this proposal I would like to say next: 1) RIPE has reserved space/free pool that it's also will be used under current polices for LIRs, there are a lot of space in it. And those space will be used for new LIRs. You can see that it will be enough for 10-15 years or more. https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio... 2) Policy name should be not like /8 but on all free/reserve space because it should relay on all rest. So name "/8" is not correct. 3) last year changes about LIRs and it's /22 we see that they didn't make any significant change in new LIR stats. I told that already when it was discussion of 24 month limitation and multilirs registration. That doesn't make any sense on stats. Current rate will give 2-3 years more space enough from 185 space. So thats more then enough. Here is some stats for this year. 2016-1 214 219136 1.31% 48.49% 8134656 2016-2 280 287744 1.72% 46.77% 7846912 2016-3 285 291840 1.74% 45.03% 7555072 2016-4 314 321536 1.92% 43.11% 7233536 2016-5 312 336896 2.01% 41.1% 6896640 2016-6 239 244736 1.46% 39.64% 6651904 2016-7 231 236544 1.41% 38.23% 6415360 2016-8 300 303616 1.81% 36.42% 6111744 2016-9 317 325376 1.94% 34.48% 5786368 2016-10 279 284416 1.7% 32.78% 5501952 But we have in RIPE ~14Mlns IPs more as same as in 2013. So here I make conclusion that things that people told before about last space will expire too fast is not true. That's just normal situation. 4) This policy will make some other type of IPs, we make things more complex, but we should make things/rules/databases less complex. We don't need new one color of IP. 5) In case of such proposal ISPs will move to IPv6 more slowly. So RIPE push to everybody to go IPv6 and from other size they don't allow that to happen. Everybody understand that at America they just gave out all IPv4 and America is the most IPv6 country. So less limitations - more progress! So what do you select? 6) As far as RIPE control limitations - RIPE control the market. And this is not correct. As we see this is already not 1st time of the limitations (/22, then IPv4 transfer 24month hold, then stop multilirs, then limitations for companies overtaking that make impossible overtaking between different countries, problem still exists) So what do we select? I will be thankful for feedback. Yuri@NTX NOC On 19.10.2016 11:05, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.
Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:
- Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer restriction - Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4 available pool
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft
We want to draw your attention to two changes, which we hope it will make your proposal evaluation easier.
- Policy proposals now contain a diff tool that allows easy comparison of different proposal versions – simply click on the “View Changes” symbol right beside the list of proposal versions. - The RIPE NCC impact analysis only mentions areas where the proposal is actually expected to have an impact. For example, if the analysis makes no comment about financial or legal impact, it means that no such impact is expected.
We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 17 November 2016.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum