Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Hi. I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. It helps to go to IPv6 and the problem of IPv4 is resolved automatically. I don't really understand why the NCC tries to prolong the life of the dead patient by means of restrictions such as 2015-01, 2017-03 and others. It seems the NCC wants to earn money due to the IPs become more expensive. So I oppose this proposal. 22 Сен 2017 г. 7:50 пользователь "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se> написал: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote: At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free
pool in RIPE's hands?
There’s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/.
There is also: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about- ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go? To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see any need to change anything. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hello Aleksey, Please read : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board It is NOT the NCC who makes proposals, it’s the community who makes proposals (anyone interested), and the members together with the board and the budget of the NCC , who decide on pricing. Rgds, Ray From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Aleksey Bulgakov Sent: 22. syyskuuta 2017 8:42 To: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space) Hi. I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. It helps to go to IPv6 and the problem of IPv4 is resolved automatically. I don't really understand why the NCC tries to prolong the life of the dead patient by means of restrictions such as 2015-01, 2017-03 and others. It seems the NCC wants to earn money due to the IPs become more expensive. So I oppose this proposal. 22 Сен 2017 г. 7:50 пользователь "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se<mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se>> написал: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote: At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free pool in RIPE's hands? There’s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. There is also: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio... Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go? To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see any need to change anything. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se<mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se>
I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger.
see the section on abrogating our responsibilities for stewardship if ipv6 can not seel itself, all the pressure will do is make even more nats. we don't really want that. oppressing the proletariat did not work out too randy. well
On 22 Sep 2017, at 08:08, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
oppressing the proletariat did not work out too randy
I’m not sure randiness was affected either way by the oppression of the proletariat. :-) Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
Hi.
Hi, <co-author hat on>
I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. It helps to go to IPv6 and the problem of IPv4 is resolved automatically.
I'm really not sure about that. It won't solve any new entrant's case. I'm working around IPv6 since 2001. Anna and Randy probably since before that. We have deployed IPv6. It didn't enable us to completely get rid of IPv4 within our networks. That also didn't solve any issue for 3rd party networks -- they all still need IPv4 addresses.
I don't really understand why the NCC tries to prolong the life of the dead patient by means of restrictions such as 2015-01, 2017-03 and others.
Please note 2017-03 is not approved yet. Please also note that the NCC is not authoring this proposal. There was a presentation about this issue in Budapest at RIPE 72. Randy talked about building a new proposal then, and it took some months to put it together. :-)
It seems the NCC wants to earn money due to the IPs become more expensive.
I don't really think this is the case. The main goal here is to preserve a minimal chunk of space for new entrants. And today, a /24 is the "minimal acceptable" size for that.
So I oppose this proposal.
Noted. Regards, Carlos Friaças
22 ???2017 ?.7:50 ???????????? "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se> ???????: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote:
At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free pool in RIPE's hands?
There?s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/.
There is also:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio...
Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go?
To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see any need to change anything.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
participants (5)
-
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Carlos Friaças -
Jetten Raymond -
Jim Reid -
Randy Bush