2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems for new entrants". -- Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
I think IPv4 exhaustion will lead to IPv6 switching and the problem is solved automatically. And there is no new proposals, discussions and others. While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems for new entrants". -- Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
Peter, I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants into the market to grow. Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market. We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option. Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent new entrants. Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial allocation. Aled On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> wrote:
While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems for new entrants".
-- Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
As young ISP, I totally agree with Aled. This solves lot of problem for us. Il 14/04/2016 16:34, Aled Morris ha scritto:
Peter,
I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants into the market to grow. Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market. We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option.
Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent new entrants.
Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial allocation. Aled
On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org <mailto:phessler@theapt.org>> wrote:
While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems for new entrants".
-- Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
-- Saverio Giuntini Servereasy di Giuntini Saverio Amministrazione e system manager
Hello, I am in favour of the proposal. Similar to Aled's comments below, we are a small entity that is restricted to growth with a single /22. I believe the 185/8 should be restricted to new entrants but allowing recycled/returned address space (outside of the 185/8) to be allocated, providing the LIR has less than a /20 in total. Kind regards, Gavin On 2016-04-14 15:34, Aled Morris wrote:
Peter,
I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants into the market to grow. Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market. We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option.
Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent new entrants.
Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial allocation.
Aled
On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> wrote:
While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems for new entrants".
-- Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
If you need/want more IPv4 addresses, the marketplace is available. RIPE should not give more addresses to people that already have some. Growth into a market that should be killed, should not be encouraged by RIPE. On 2016 Apr 14 (Thu) at 15:51:56 +0100 (+0100), ripe@scholarwebservices.com wrote: : : :Hello, : :I am in favour of the proposal. Similar to Aled's comments below, we are :a small entity that is restricted to growth with a single /22. I believe :the 185/8 should be restricted to new entrants but allowing :recycled/returned address space (outside of the 185/8) to be allocated, :providing the LIR has less than a /20 in total. : :Kind regards, : :Gavin : :On 2016-04-14 15:34, Aled Morris wrote: : :> Peter, :> :> I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants into the market to grow. Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market. We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option. :> :> Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent new entrants. :> :> Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial allocation. :> :> Aled :> :> On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> wrote: :> :>> While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to :>> receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the :>> simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems :>> for new entrants". :>> :>> -- :>> Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry. : -- The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. -- Oscar Wilde
From my understanding, the new proposal is to keep the 185/8 for new entrants as it was always intended, but allow returned addresses from IANA (currently in the region of a /9 to /10) to be reallocated. To me
Hi Peter, I do understand the argument of members not if favour of the proposal. We should all be adopting IPv6 and other means to overcome the problem and indeed the 185/8 should remain for new entrants as CGNAT etc. The reality is, we are still in a world where widespread IPv6 adoption is very slow. A single /22 is simply not enough for a new ISPs to grow and become competitive. Yes the marketplace is there, but most of us requiring additional IPv4 simply don't have the financial resource to make use of it at the current (frankly astronomical) rates. this is not unreasonable and what I am in favour of. Kind regard, Gavin On 2016-04-15 09:16, Peter Hessler wrote:
If you need/want more IPv4 addresses, the marketplace is available. RIPE should not give more addresses to people that already have some.
Growth into a market that should be killed, should not be encouraged by RIPE.
On 2016 Apr 14 (Thu) at 15:51:56 +0100 (+0100), ripe@scholarwebservices.com wrote: : : :Hello, : :I am in favour of the proposal. Similar to Aled's comments below, we are :a small entity that is restricted to growth with a single /22. I believe :the 185/8 should be restricted to new entrants but allowing :recycled/returned address space (outside of the 185/8) to be allocated, :providing the LIR has less than a /20 in total. : :Kind regards, : :Gavin : :On 2016-04-14 15:34, Aled Morris wrote: : :> Peter, :> :> I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants into the market to grow. Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market. We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option. :> :> Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent new entrants. :> :> Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial allocation. :> :> Aled :> :> On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> wrote: :> :>> While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to :>> receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the :>> simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems :>> for new entrants". :>> :>> -- :>> Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry. :
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:16, Peter Hessler wrote:
Growth into a market that should be killed, should not be encouraged by RIPE.
What you are actually saying is the "Internet Access for Small Business" market should be killed. A "softer" interpretation would be that it should be left to "big enough players". ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" equals no business.
On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" equals no business.
And these other markets are either dead or dying because there is no more IPv4. Some might survive if they can adapt to reality in time. Any current business model which depends on issuing a dedicated (public?) IPv4 addresses to new customers is doomed. That model is simply not sustainable any more. Either change the model or go bust. Pick one.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016, at 13:36, Jim Reid wrote:
On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" equals no business.
And these other markets are either dead or dying because there is no more IPv4. Some might survive if they can adapt to reality in time.
Any current business model which depends on issuing a dedicated (public?) IPv4 addresses to new customers is doomed. That model is simply not sustainable any more. Either change the model or go bust. Pick one.
For the moment it's "change model *AND* go bust". Or "refuse and try to survive" (but ultimately fail 95% of the time, with the current rules). Customers don't care very much about IPv6, CGN doesn't always work, transfer market is at a point difficult ot reach. Or you can just let "incumbets" develop a monopoly.
On 14 Apr 2016, at 15:34, Aled Morris <aled.w.morris@googlemail.com> wrote:
I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants into the market to grow.
I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? years from now. LIRs who take advantage of this proposal would continue to fail to deal with the v4 run-out. That would be bad for everyone.
Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market.
Tough. It’s difficult to get on a train long after it has left the station. New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is and should plan accordingly. Everyone would like to grow their IPv4 networks but that just isn’t possible any more.
We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option.
It's the only sane option. But there are others. Choose wisely. Changing address policy to speed up depletion of the NCC's last dregs of IPv4 is not wise. Doing that just because some LIRs -- not necessarily new entrants -- can’t or won’t face up to the reality of IPv4 exhaustion is even more unwise. This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right.
Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent new entrants.
I’m far from convinced there is a “real problem” here. If compelling arguments can be made to define the problem and solve it, let’s hear them! IMO this proposal is really about short-term gain for some at the expense of others, particularly tomorrow’s new LIRs. BTW what’s to stop an unscrupulous LIR from repeatedly requesting extra /22s (or whatever) through this proposal and then selling/transferring the space without updating the database? If they tried to do this today, they could only get away with it once because they’d only get one v4 allocation.
On 14/04/16 17:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? years from now.
IMO this proposal is really about short-term gain for some at the expense of others, particularly tomorrow’s new LIRs.
These, for me, are the two most important points yet. 2015-05, like all previous attempts to change the "last /8" address policy, have ignored them. If the pro-policy argument is that "IPv6 is taking too long, we need more IPv4 today" then how are you going to feel in 15 years when you still need some IPv4, and there isn't any? One could say that you might be "shooting yourself in the foot" by adopting this policy - especially if you don't work for the same Company as you do today. Regards, -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 (0) 1904 890 890
On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal
what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. Well said, Jim. /Niall
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Tore Anderson wrote:
* "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>
On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal
what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. Well said, Jim.
+1
I agree with people above, I want to keep the last /8 for new future entrants with current policy, not deplete quicker. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hi Mikael, The last /8 is not really get affected by this policy, - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 Is it the only reason of your objection to this policy? Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: Friday, 15 April 2016 5:46 PM To: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Tore Anderson wrote:
* "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>
On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal
what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. Well said, Jim.
+1
I agree with people above, I want to keep the last /8 for new future entrants with current policy, not deplete quicker. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Tue, 10 May 2016, Arash Naderpour wrote:
Hi Mikael,
The last /8 is not really get affected by this policy,
- Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8
Is it the only reason of your objection to this policy?
No. When I said last-/8 I meant addresses available to be handed out to new entrants. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal
what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. Well said, Jim.
as Jim said.. I'm also against this policy. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
I agree with Jim's and many other people's later comments - we should prioritise keeping what's left of the IPv4 address space for the long term new entrants, not find ways to hand it out sooner to existing LIR's, large or small. For absolute clarity, I do not support this proposal Regards Bob 07958 318592 -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: 14 April 2016 17:02 To: Aled Morris Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 14 Apr 2016, at 15:34, Aled Morris <aled.w.morris@googlemail.com> wrote:
I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants into the market to grow.
I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? years from now. LIRs who take advantage of this proposal would continue to fail to deal with the v4 run-out. That would be bad for everyone.
Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market.
Tough. It’s difficult to get on a train long after it has left the station. New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is and should plan accordingly. Everyone would like to grow their IPv4 networks but that just isn’t possible any more.
We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option.
It's the only sane option. But there are others. Choose wisely. Changing address policy to speed up depletion of the NCC's last dregs of IPv4 is not wise. Doing that just because some LIRs -- not necessarily new entrants -- can’t or won’t face up to the reality of IPv4 exhaustion is even more unwise. This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right.
Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent new entrants.
I’m far from convinced there is a “real problem” here. If compelling arguments can be made to define the problem and solve it, let’s hear them! IMO this proposal is really about short-term gain for some at the expense of others, particularly tomorrow’s new LIRs. BTW what’s to stop an unscrupulous LIR from repeatedly requesting extra /22s (or whatever) through this proposal and then selling/transferring the space without updating the database? If they tried to do this today, they could only get away with it once because they’d only get one v4 allocation. NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you. We monitor our email system, and may record your emails. EE Limited Registered office:Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW Registered in England no: 02382161 EE Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of: British Telecommunications plc Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no: 1800000
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? years from now.
Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again, the free pool will not survive 10 years. And if the purpose is to last as long as possible, other changes are required (strict needs assesment, more restrictions, penalties for not respecting the conditions)
LIRs who take advantage of this proposal would continue to fail to deal with the v4 run-out.
Because they can't. You can deploy as much IPv6 as you want, there still are things that require IPv4 without CGN. If you can't provide it, you don't sell.
New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is and should plan accordingly.
No, most of them don't. They barely understand what RIPE and RIPE NCC are. Then at some point they find out (few of them know already) that years ago some people could get more space than they ever needed, while right now you can't get more than half of the previous minimum even if you need. I can understand that everybody should switch to transfers market at some point, but with only a /22 you will have lots of troubles reaching that point. Cases where you can go directly from a /22 to transfers are more the exception than the rule.
It's the only sane option. But there are others. Choose wisely.
In certains situations (read market segements) there are no other options. At least not today.
This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right.
Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a "large enough block" (usually more than a /22).
BTW what’s to stop an unscrupulous LIR from repeatedly requesting extra /22s (or whatever) through this proposal and then selling/transferring the space without updating the database? If they tried to do this today,
Time ? On the other hand, I would say that someone accepting the purchase of a block not declared in the database has a real problem to solve. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? years from now.
Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again, the free pool will not survive 10 years.
Maybe, maybe not. This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.
And if the purpose is to last as long as possible, other changes are required (strict needs assesment, more restrictions, penalties for not respecting the conditions)
Feel free to submit policy proposals which make those chnges. :-)
Because they can't. You can deploy as much IPv6 as you want, there still are things that require IPv4 without CGN. If you can't provide it, you don't sell.
Tough. When you’ve burnt though the free pool, you *still* won’t have the v4 space to do these things that can’t be done with NAT or whatever. What are you going to do then? And why can’t/won't you adopt these measures now?
New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is and should plan accordingly.
No, most of them don’t.
Well frankly, that’s their problem. Anyone building a network or setting up a business now which is predicated on a never-ending abundance of IPv4 simply hasn’t done their homework. I wish them luck. They’re going to need it.
They barely understand what RIPE and RIPE NCC are. Then at some point they find out (few of them know already) that years ago some people could get more space than they ever needed, while right now you can't get more than half of the previous minimum even if you need.
So what? The rules and circumstances were different back then. Things change. Deal with it.
In certains situations (read market segements) there are no other options. At least not today.
Well frittering away the free pool is not an option. And even if it was, it could not solve the problems you appear to think this proposal would solve. We’re essentially out of IPv4. *Everyone* simply has to recognise that fact and take appropriate action.
This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right.
Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a "large enough block" (usually more than a /22).
Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene. I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening.
On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN<ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? years from now.
Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again, the free pool will not survive 10 years. Maybe, maybe not.
This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.
How is this going to happen? Will the 185/8 going to being depleted by new LIRs in 10 months? I'm I missing something? Have you really read the policy change, or are you against any policy change by default?
This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already
have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right.
Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a "large enough block" (usually more than a /22). Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene.
I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening.
I don't think this could happen, as policy's are similar to laws. If your government raises taxes next year you won't be able to sue them for that. So I think this kind of arguments have no real support.
As we all know, there are lot of big LIRs with plenty of unused (or wasted) space, and now they are making serious business selling their classes. With a current price of about 10€/IP, it's easy to understand how big are interests behind this: some LIRs could make M€ just by selling something they obtained for free some years ago. It's clear that we can't "generate" more IPv4, but IMHO this is totally against a fair market. A new LIR with just a /22 shouldn't be charged like one with tons of /12: if having lot of IPv4 would be anti-economical for big LIRs, this would be a *real* incentivation for IPv6 deployment and return of IPv4. I'm not a lawyer, but probabily this problem should be reviewd by European Commission for Competition. Br -- Saverio Giuntini Servereasy di Giuntini Saverio Amministrazione e system manager
On 16 Apr 2016, at 13:48, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
Will the 185/8 going to being depleted by new LIRs in 10 months? I'm I missing something?
Yes. Allocations from 185/8 wouldn’t just go to new LIRs. And besides it’s not just allocations from that /8 that would be affected by this proposal. As Remco has already pointed out, the final /8 policy "was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion."
Have you really read the policy change, or are you against any policy change by default?
I support policy proposals which are sensible and benefit the community. (Same thing really.) 2015-05 does not do that. I have read the policy change and thought about its implications. I suggest you look at the first two bullet points listed under "Arguments opposing the proposal”. These are two of the main reasons why this proposal has to be rejected. The first one is a show-stopper. It’s more than enough reason to kill this proposal.
On 16 Apr 2016, at 13:48, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
Will the 185/8 going to being depleted by new LIRs in 10 months? I'm I missing something? Yes. Allocations from 185/8 wouldn’t just go to new LIRs. And besides it’s not just allocations from that /8 that would be affected by this proposal.
As Remco has already pointed out, the final /8 policy "was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion."
Have you really read the policy change, or are you against any policy change by default? I support policy proposals which are sensible and benefit the community. (Same thing really.) 2015-05 does not do that.
I have read the policy change and thought about its implications. I suggest you look at the first two bullet points listed under "Arguments opposing the proposal”. These are two of the main reasons why this proposal has to be rejected. The first one is a show-stopper. It’s more than enough reason to kill this proposal. Yes. I've read it (now twice) and it seems to me you are missing small
I thought I've missed something when you wrote that and I've re-read the policy change proposal. To me it "1. The size of the allocation made from 185/8 will be exactly one /22." this sounds like allocations from 185/8 will be as till now. Then " 3.2. There is enough space in the free pool outside the 185/8 block to perform the allocation." CLEARLY STATES 185/8 won't be used for the subsequent allocations. How on earth did you reach the conclusion that 185/8 will be depleted in 10 months? points in it. "Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free pool. If every member holding less than a total of /20 addresses would submit a request for a new /22 allocation every 18 months, the recovered pool could be depleted in 2-3 years from now." From what I see they are talking about recovered IANA pool space. So I don't see a problem if that's going to be used in 2-3 years, considering 185/8 will remain for future new LIR's, as intended from the start.
On 16 Apr 2016, at 16:35, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
How on earth did you reach the conclusion that 185/8 will be depleted in 10 months?
I didn’t. You’re putting words in my mouth. I actually said "This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.” You’re obsessing about the absolute value of a number in an off-the-cuff rhetorical comment. Whether the free pool gets exhausted in 9 months or 11 months or 10.001 months or 10.002 months as a result of this proposal simply does not matter. It’s clearly going to get wiped out sooner than it would under the current policy. Picking nits over guesses/assumptions about when this event happens makes no difference to the outcome. We still run out of IPv4 sooner than we would with the current policy. That’s the inconvenient truth. Supporters of 2015-05 must address this, excuse the pun. 2015-05 clearly states "Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free pool.”. The object of 2015-05 is to allow further allocations. Therefore it will will speed up the depletion of the free pool. I oppose a policy proposal which has this aim and has no supporting facts to justify taking that course. I’ve listed several reasons for rejecting 2015-05 already and do not need to repeat them. Supporters of this proposal are welcome to present evidence which shows why those reasons are mistaken or wrong. Or why the proposed policy would be better for the RIPE community than the current one. For some definition of better... To date, all that’s been provided is a rag-bag of noise, non-sequiturs and vague references to unsustainable business models. If there’s a sensible or compelling justification to rapidly burn through the last dregs of IPv4, let's hear it.
On 16.04.2016 19.00, Jim Reid wrote:
I actually said "This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.” If I remember correctly we have spent approx half of the last /8 but the same amount of address space has been returned - so the amount of space available now is approximately the same as when we started the /8 policy. See: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio...
The complicated part for this wg - is that the charging scheme for RIPE NCC membership is NOT a topic of the wg. At the same time it is very easy to obtain more address space from the RIPE NCC: establish a new registry. This has a cost. While the possibility to establish multiple LIRs pr members has been suspended by the Exec Board, there is an easy workaround - just set up a new company to set up a new registry - but this has a slightly higher cost. This cost is still lower than buying address space on the open market. While restrictions on transfer on address space has been put in place - there are easy workarounds for this as well: sell the company - or make a lease with option to buy agreement. As the RIPE NCC is a membership organization and not a government it will be hard if not impossible to prohibit such workarounds. So the effect of the current policy is that new LIRs are established to get address space. No matter what the policy looks like. Some of this is used for building Internet services - some of this is sold to others to build Internet services. The question for the community is what is fair distribution of address space - now and in the short and long term future. Long term the only viable solution is IPv6 - but how do we share the common good in the mean time? -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Hi On Wednesday 20 April 2016, Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> wrote:
On 16.04.2016 19.00, Jim Reid wrote:
I actually said "This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.”
If I remember correctly we have spent approx half of the last /8 but the same amount of address space has been returned - so the amount of space available now is approximately the same as when we started the /8 policy. See: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio...
The complicated part for this wg - is that the charging scheme for RIPE NCC membership is NOT a topic of the wg.
At the same time it is very easy to obtain more address space from the RIPE NCC: establish a new registry. This has a cost. While the possibility to establish multiple LIRs pr members has been suspended by the Exec Board, there is an easy workaround - just set up a new company to set up a new registry - but this has a slightly higher cost. This cost is still lower than buying address space on the open market. While restrictions on transfer on address space has been put in place - there are easy workarounds for this as well: sell the company - or make a lease with option to buy agreement.
As the RIPE NCC is a membership organization and not a government it will be hard if not impossible to prohibit such workarounds.
Can not agree more. Folks here barely thinking about the "business" side of the story, if there is an way to make profit and no risk, people would do it. With raising v4 price, I would expect much faster depletion due to the very fact that paying RIPE NCC is easier, more transparent in the process compare to the market, and even cheaper.
So the effect of the current policy is that new LIRs are established to get address space. No matter what the policy looks like. Some of this is used for building Internet services - some of this is sold to others to build Internet services.
The question for the community is what is fair distribution of address space - now and in the short and long term future.
Long term the only viable solution is IPv6 - but how do we share the common good in the mean time?
-- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene. I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening.
And such LIR would sue who? Himself? RIPE NCC is not a government body, nor a private company. It's an organisation of members, and such a LIR would have to be a member with set voting rights. You can't really sue for policy changes because you don't like how other, equal members voted. I'm not a lawyer but I don't see this stand in court. Missed argument. Kind Regards, Dom -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: 16 April 2016 12:22 To: Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? years from now.
Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again, the free pool will not survive 10 years.
Maybe, maybe not. This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.
And if the purpose is to last as long as possible, other changes are required (strict needs assesment, more restrictions, penalties for not respecting the conditions)
Feel free to submit policy proposals which make those chnges. :-)
Because they can't. You can deploy as much IPv6 as you want, there still are things that require IPv4 without CGN. If you can't provide it, you don't sell.
Tough. When you’ve burnt though the free pool, you *still* won’t have the v4 space to do these things that can’t be done with NAT or whatever. What are you going to do then? And why can’t/won't you adopt these measures now?
New entrants presumably know what the current v4 allocation policy is and should plan accordingly.
No, most of them don’t.
Well frankly, that’s their problem. Anyone building a network or setting up a business now which is predicated on a never-ending abundance of IPv4 simply hasn’t done their homework. I wish them luck. They’re going to need it.
They barely understand what RIPE and RIPE NCC are. Then at some point they find out (few of them know already) that years ago some people could get more space than they ever needed, while right now you can't get more than half of the previous minimum even if you need.
So what? The rules and circumstances were different back then. Things change. Deal with it.
In certains situations (read market segements) there are no other options. At least not today.
Well frittering away the free pool is not an option. And even if it was, it could not solve the problems you appear to think this proposal would solve. We’re essentially out of IPv4. *Everyone* simply has to recognise that fact and take appropriate action.
This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right.
Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a "large enough block" (usually more than a /22).
Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene. I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening.
On 16 Apr 2016, at 14:53, Dominik Nowacki <dominik@clouvider.co.uk> wrote:
And such LIR would sue who? Himself? RIPE NCC is not a government body, nor a private company. It's an organisation of members, and such a LIR would have to be a member with set voting rights. You can't really sue for policy changes because you don't like how other, equal members voted.
They’d start by suing the NCC for implementing a policy which has done harm to the LIR’s business. If they were vindictive, they’d also go after the authors of the policy change, the individuals who supported that policy proposal and those who had a hand in making the consensus judgement. Whether these hypothetical actions might be ultimately successful or not is irrelevant. [FWIW there’s no point debating here how many lawyers can dance on the head of this pin. It’s also a side issue compared to the main problems raised by 2015-05.] However the stink arising from such action(s) would get the attention of governments and regulators. That would be Bad. Defending these lawsuits would not be cheap either. BTW, nobody “votes” on address policy. That’s decided by the RIPE community. Which is not the same thing as the RIPE NCC membership. RIPE’s decisions are made by consensus. NCC members get to vote for board candidates, the charging scheme and the organisation’s activity plan. Anyone can take part in RIPE policy-making. They don’t have to be a RIPE NCC member.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016, at 17:10, Jim Reid wrote:
On 16 Apr 2016, at 14:53, Dominik Nowacki <dominik@clouvider.co.uk> wrote:
And such LIR would sue who? Himself? RIPE NCC is not a government body, nor a private company. It's an organisation of members, and such a LIR would have to be a member with set voting rights. You can't really sue for policy changes because you don't like how other, equal members voted.
They’d start by suing the NCC for implementing a policy which has done harm to the LIR’s business. If they were vindictive, they’d also go after
Here we are in the FUD domain. I think we should not go that way.
the authors of the policy change, the individuals who supported that policy proposal and those who had a hand in making the consensus judgement.
I, as a proposer would not fear about that. Justice is complex in its own, international justice (neither of the proposers live in UK or NL) is even more complex.
action(s) would get the attention of governments and regulators. That would be Bad.
Regulators may end up acting in either direction (for or against).
decisions are made by consensus. NCC members get to vote for board candidates, the charging scheme and the organisation’s activity plan.
And in certain circumstances, on other things....
I object to this proposal as written. I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 14 April 2016 13:42 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
And why is that Ian ? Dominik -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dickinson, Ian Sent: 14 April 2016 16:01 To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) I object to this proposal as written. I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 14 April 2016 13:42 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
"Small" providers want to grow. "Large" providers want to grow too. "Medium" providers presumably want to grow as well. (for some value of "grow") In all cases, this means IPv6, not IPv4. I prefer the current policy that is in place. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dominik Nowacki Sent: 14 April 2016 16:02 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) And why is that Ian ? Dominik -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dickinson, Ian Sent: 14 April 2016 16:01 To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) I object to this proposal as written. I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 14 April 2016 13:42 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
On 14 Apr 2016, at 16:08, Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson@sky.uk> wrote:
I prefer the current policy that is in place.
+100. Kill 2015-05! Nuke it from orbit, just to be sure.
Ian, This policy isn't going to change the ability of a large organisation to grown since the amount of space we're talking about is relatively small, and totally trivial to an LIR with (the equivalent of) nearly 700 /22s. I don't think the policy fails the test of "fairness" simply because larger LIRs won't be getting addresses as the "benefit" of an additional /22 would be marginal for them anyway. I would hope that large LIRs don't make objections to this proposal just because they don't see any benefit to them - that come come across as selfish. If we limit the allocation of remaining space to brand new LIRs only, it means that small ISPs in their first growth spurt might be driven to form a second LIR to get that second /22 of space.. I know companies who've done this. It isn't sensible. The proposal makes it possible to achieve the sensible result without resorting to stupid behaviour. Aled On 14 April 2016 at 16:08, Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson@sky.uk> wrote:
"Small" providers want to grow. "Large" providers want to grow too. "Medium" providers presumably want to grow as well. (for some value of "grow")
In all cases, this means IPv6, not IPv4.
I prefer the current policy that is in place.
Ian
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dominik Nowacki Sent: 14 April 2016 16:02 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
And why is that Ian ?
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dickinson, Ian Sent: 14 April 2016 16:01 To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
I object to this proposal as written.
I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR.
Ian
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 14 April 2016 13:42 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.
Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to < address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
On 14 Apr 2016, at 16:59, Aled Morris <aled.w.morris@googlemail.com> wrote:
If we limit the allocation of remaining space to brand new LIRs only, it means that small ISPs in their first growth spurt might be driven to form a second LIR to get that second /22 of space..
I know companies who've done this. It isn't sensible.
True. But the NCC has ways to deal with those sorts of bad actors. Besides, the checks on a new LIR raise a reasonably high barrier for those who try to game the system in this way.
The proposal makes it possible to achieve the sensible result without resorting to stupid behaviour.
It will however encourage new forms of stupid behaviour and enable attempts to game v4 allocation policy that would be harder for the NCC to police/detect.
On 14.04.2016 18.13, Jim Reid wrote:
I know companies who've done this. It isn't sensible. True. But the NCC has ways to deal with those sorts of bad actors. Besides, the checks on a new LIR raise a reasonably high barrier for those who try to game the system in this way.
No. I work for a multi-national corporation. We have multiple datacentres in multiple countries and these are organized as separate legal entities and have separate LIRs. This has been the practice of large multi-national LIRs for the last 20 years. I do not see how that makes us a bad actor gaming the system. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
On 19 Apr 2016, at 23:11, Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> wrote:
On 14.04.2016 18.13, Jim Reid wrote:
I know companies who've done this. It isn't sensible. True. But the NCC has ways to deal with those sorts of bad actors. Besides, the checks on a new LIR raise a reasonably high barrier for those who try to game the system in this way.
No. I work for a multi-national corporation. We have multiple datacentres in multiple countries and these are organized as separate legal entities and have separate LIRs. This has been the practice of large multi-national LIRs for the last 20 years.
I do not see how that makes us a bad actor gaming the system.
I do not see that either Hans Petter. Or how anyone might consider that sort of behaviour to be a bad actor gaming the system. As I’m sure you know, when an application for a new LIR is made, paperwork -- certificates of incorporation, tax registration numbers, contact details and so on -- has to be supplied to the NCC. This information gets checked. Those checks by the NCC are (or should be) strong enough to weed out membership applications by bad actors. Which presumably would not include the sort of good faith activity you described above. Bad actors may well try to become an LIR to get address space “for free” from the NCC. But they'll first have to set up a legal entity, register it with the national tax authorities and chamber of commerce, pay a lawyer or accountant, etc, etc. The cost of all that effort plus the NCC fees is very likely to be similar to the value of their exactly one /22 on the secondary market. IMO these factors do raise barriers which should make it harder for an impostor to game the system without unduly inconveniencing genuine applicants. That’s what I was saying earlier. Now there are ways to game address allocation. [There always have and probably always will.] You even mentioned some. It’s dpoubtful these sorts of activities would go unnoticed. And at the very least questions would (or should) be asked to establish if these actions were carried out in good faith or were something more suspicious than that. Note too that I was not saying or implying that everyone who sets up an LIR to get a /22 -- or LIRs to get >1 /22 -- is a bad actor. Some wannabe LIRs might be up to no good. That’s just a fact of life: there’s always someone somewhere trying to break or bend the rules. But I trust the NCC’s checks are robust enough to identify these impostors and deal with them. Further discussion about that should probably take place at the (A)GM and not on this list.
Aled, Let’s stop this being specific to my situation. I’m not arguing against 2015-05 because I work for a large LIR. I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop. We have a working policy, and we should stick with it. Anyway, I’ve registered my objection – I’m done with this unless the text changes. Ian From: Aled Morris [mailto:aled.w.morris@googlemail.com] Sent: 14 April 2016 17:00 To: Dickinson, Ian Cc: Dominik Nowacki; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Ian, This policy isn't going to change the ability of a large organisation to grown since the amount of space we're talking about is relatively small, and totally trivial to an LIR with (the equivalent of) nearly 700 /22s. I don't think the policy fails the test of "fairness" simply because larger LIRs won't be getting addresses as the "benefit" of an additional /22 would be marginal for them anyway. I would hope that large LIRs don't make objections to this proposal just because they don't see any benefit to them - that come come across as selfish. If we limit the allocation of remaining space to brand new LIRs only, it means that small ISPs in their first growth spurt might be driven to form a second LIR to get that second /22 of space.. I know companies who've done this. It isn't sensible. The proposal makes it possible to achieve the sensible result without resorting to stupid behaviour. Aled Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
Sorry Ian I wasn't being personal but I do think the proposal benefits small LIRs and I have a vested interest in that regard. The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. Aled On 14 April 2016 at 17:17, Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson@sky.uk> wrote:
Aled,
Let’s stop this being specific to my situation. I’m not arguing against 2015-05 because I work for a large LIR.
I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop. We have a working policy, and we should stick with it.
Anyway, I’ve registered my objection – I’m done with this unless the text changes.
Ian
*From:* Aled Morris [mailto:aled.w.morris@googlemail.com] *Sent:* 14 April 2016 17:00 *To:* Dickinson, Ian *Cc:* Dominik Nowacki; address-policy-wg@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Ian,
This policy isn't going to change the ability of a large organisation to grown since the amount of space we're talking about is relatively small, and totally trivial to an LIR with (the equivalent of) nearly 700 /22s.
I don't think the policy fails the test of "fairness" simply because larger LIRs won't be getting addresses as the "benefit" of an additional /22 would be marginal for them anyway.
I would hope that large LIRs don't make objections to this proposal just because they don't see any benefit to them - that come come across as selfish.
If we limit the allocation of remaining space to brand new LIRs only, it means that small ISPs in their first growth spurt might be driven to form a second LIR to get that second /22 of space..
I know companies who've done this. It isn't sensible. The proposal makes it possible to achieve the sensible result without resorting to stupid behaviour.
Aled
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:23, Aled Morris <aled.w.morris@googlemail.com> wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6”
I said no such thing. There are a number of ways for organisations to deal with IPv4 exhaustion. These include (but are not limited to) IPv6 deployment; closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the problem does not exist; NAT; ALG; acquiring addresses from the secondary market; buying an address holder with lots of unused space; etc, etc. IMO IPv6 deployment seems to be the least worst of these choices but whatever choice someone makes is up to them. After all, they should know which option works best for their network. YMMV. My objections to 2015-05 are as follows: 1) It will deplete the remaining pool of IPv4 space at a faster rate than is sensible or reasonable. 2) It will disadvantage new entrants who need IPv4 once the RIRs have run out sooner than they should have done. 3) It allows LIRs to continue to ignore the IPv4 run-out because they could just keep going back to the RIR and get yet another IPv4 allocation. 4) It disadvantages existing LIRs who have already taken action to address IPv4 exhaustion. 5) It enables new and unwelcome ways to scam address space and/or compromise the integrity of the RIPE database. 6) There’s no clear problem statement, let alone an explanation how this proposal solves whatever that problem might be or why other solutions are unsuitable. “Some LIRs want to grow their networks and ignore the IPv4 run-out” is not a sound problem statement IMO. 7) It will discourage address recycling. Why return unused space to IANA or the RIR if they’re just going to give it away to LIRs who can’t/won’t take proper steps to deal with the IPv4 run-out? There’s no mention of IPv6 in the above list.
recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on.
Tough. That was then. This is now. The circumstances an policies that prevailed 10-20-30 years ago don’t apply today. We can only do the best (or least-worst) job of allocating the remaining IPv4 space in a fair and reasonable manner. 2015-05 does not achieve that. In fact it does the opposite.
It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition.
Nobody was saying or even suggesting it was. At least I don’t think anyone was saying that. Similarly, it simply won’t be possible N years from now for someone to build their IPv6 only network and have connectivity to the legacy Internet unless they can get some IPv4 space.
OK I see what you are saying now. One one particular point, I'm as concerned as anyone about the possibility of bad actors "gaming the system" to get more address space. There's no perfect system but if the weight of opinion is that changing the rules might well make things worse then I agree we shouldn't do it. Aled On 14 April 2016 at 18:29, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:23, Aled Morris <aled.w.morris@googlemail.com> wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6”
I said no such thing.
There are a number of ways for organisations to deal with IPv4 exhaustion. These include (but are not limited to) IPv6 deployment; closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the problem does not exist; NAT; ALG; acquiring addresses from the secondary market; buying an address holder with lots of unused space; etc, etc. IMO IPv6 deployment seems to be the least worst of these choices but whatever choice someone makes is up to them. After all, they should know which option works best for their network. YMMV.
My objections to 2015-05 are as follows:
1) It will deplete the remaining pool of IPv4 space at a faster rate than is sensible or reasonable. 2) It will disadvantage new entrants who need IPv4 once the RIRs have run out sooner than they should have done. 3) It allows LIRs to continue to ignore the IPv4 run-out because they could just keep going back to the RIR and get yet another IPv4 allocation. 4) It disadvantages existing LIRs who have already taken action to address IPv4 exhaustion. 5) It enables new and unwelcome ways to scam address space and/or compromise the integrity of the RIPE database. 6) There’s no clear problem statement, let alone an explanation how this proposal solves whatever that problem might be or why other solutions are unsuitable. “Some LIRs want to grow their networks and ignore the IPv4 run-out” is not a sound problem statement IMO. 7) It will discourage address recycling. Why return unused space to IANA or the RIR if they’re just going to give it away to LIRs who can’t/won’t take proper steps to deal with the IPv4 run-out?
There’s no mention of IPv6 in the above list.
recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on.
Tough. That was then. This is now. The circumstances an policies that prevailed 10-20-30 years ago don’t apply today. We can only do the best (or least-worst) job of allocating the remaining IPv4 space in a fair and reasonable manner. 2015-05 does not achieve that. In fact it does the opposite.
It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition.
Nobody was saying or even suggesting it was. At least I don’t think anyone was saying that.
Similarly, it simply won’t be possible N years from now for someone to build their IPv6 only network and have connectivity to the legacy Internet unless they can get some IPv4 space.
Hi, On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition.
Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* by this policy, but actually *advantaged*. If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 2016 Apr 15 (Fri) at 10:41:56 +0200 (+0200), Gert Doering wrote: :Hi, : :On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote: :> The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" :> which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against :> proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged :> against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It :> simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. : :Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* :by this policy, but actually *advantaged*. : :If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small :startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can :get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away :space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time? : :Gert Doering : -- APWG chair This was exactly what happened to me at a previous job, and I am very happy that we were able to receive even a small-ish allocation of IPs. -- Hanson's Treatment of Time: There are never enough hours in a day, but always too many days before Saturday.
Hi, First I personally support this policy because I believe the small LIR need help and not the larger ones, which stay relaxed on large pools and disagree with this policy because if small LIR grow, they will lose market share. It's easy for someone who administers a /16 or larger to disagree because its business won't stop to grow at the rate of a small LIR with a /22 or similar. What I'm talking about here is large pool -> more dynamic allocation/dis-allocation which translated in run the business at a certain level even if ipv4 pool is gone, where small pool results in stalled business growth for small LIR's. So even if you say the small LIR's are *advantaged* this won't hurt the market. The discussion regarding the last /8 policy benefit can be long, but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode. Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed. With regards, Adrian Pitulac On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* by this policy, but actually *advantaged*.
If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time?
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Hi, I do not think anyone is disadvantaged. The fact is that we have talked about IPv4 exhaustion for years now. If you are thinking about starting a new LIR, please think first, as always when starting new business. Is it enough for your organization to have a /22 or not. Bigger LIR:s had several years to implement IPv6, the IPv4 exhaustion is nothing new. Of course, everyone want to apply for new addresses if possible to get them. But when the parcel with IPv4 addresses are empty, then it is empty. Julianna -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Adrian Pitulac Sent: den 15 april 2016 11:02 To: Gert Doering; Aled Morris Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Hi, First I personally support this policy because I believe the small LIR need help and not the larger ones, which stay relaxed on large pools and disagree with this policy because if small LIR grow, they will lose market share. It's easy for someone who administers a /16 or larger to disagree because its business won't stop to grow at the rate of a small LIR with a /22 or similar. What I'm talking about here is large pool -> more dynamic allocation/dis-allocation which translated in run the business at a certain level even if ipv4 pool is gone, where small pool results in stalled business growth for small LIR's. So even if you say the small LIR's are *advantaged* this won't hurt the market. The discussion regarding the last /8 policy benefit can be long, but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode. Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed. With regards, Adrian Pitulac On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* by this policy, but actually *advantaged*.
If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time?
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth.
Well, no, not if you look at https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, which shows steady IPv6 growth towards Google services (approaching 11% now). Similarly wrt active IPv6 routes - http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html What statistics are you referring to? The policy in the RIPE region means that effectively we’ll “never” run out, but that any new LIR can get a /22 to support public-facing services and some amount of CGNAT. In the ARIN region, they’re on the very last fumes of v4 address space as they had no such policy.
Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode.
The smart people are already well into their deployment programmes. But those take time. Comcast were one of the the first, and have benefitted from that. In the UK, Sky’s rollout has resumed, but has been a long-term project where, I believe, they decided that investing in IPv6 was much smarter than investing in bigger CGNATs.
Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed.
The RIPE NCC has done a great job in putting out information for several years, and encouraging adoption since at least 2011 - https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre - so the help on IPv6 has been there for the taking... Tim
With regards, Adrian Pitulac
On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* by this policy, but actually *advantaged*.
If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time?
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
I'm talking about the statistics presented even at RIPE 71 in Bucharest last year, where IPv6 capability in US grew 5% between 05.2015 and 11.2015. Coming back to the policy discussion, I don't see why keeping 185/8 for new entrants wouldn't be a viable solution. It's the exact thing which was intended when the last /8 policy was created. On 15/04/16 12:21, Tim Chown wrote:
On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Well, no, not if you look at https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, which shows steady IPv6 growth towards Google services (approaching 11% now).
Similarly wrt active IPv6 routes - http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html
What statistics are you referring to?
The policy in the RIPE region means that effectively we’ll “never” run out, but that any new LIR can get a /22 to support public-facing services and some amount of CGNAT. In the ARIN region, they’re on the very last fumes of v4 address space as they had no such policy.
Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode. The smart people are already well into their deployment programmes. But those take time. Comcast were one of the the first, and have benefitted from that. In the UK, Sky’s rollout has resumed, but has been a long-term project where, I believe, they decided that investing in IPv6 was much smarter than investing in bigger CGNATs.
Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed. The RIPE NCC has done a great job in putting out information for several years, and encouraging adoption since at least 2011 - https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre - so the help on IPv6 has been there for the taking...
Tim
With regards, Adrian Pitulac
On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* by this policy, but actually *advantaged*.
If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time?
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
On 15 Apr 2016, at 14:33, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
I'm talking about the statistics presented even at RIPE 71 in Bucharest last year, where IPv6 capability in US grew 5% between 05.2015 and 11.2015.
It depends on your view. The Akamai stats at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ suggest 2% increase over the same period, and linear growth that has flattened out a little. I suspect you mean slide 37 of https://ripe71.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/56-RIPE71-bucharest..., which shows linear/slowing growth over that period, from a high starting point. I don’t think that slide supports your argument at all, and in any event any significant deployment takes time, you can’t just magic it up when an event happens. And regardless of 2% or 5%, that growth is a mix of residential operators like Comcast, who were deploying anyway during that period, and the mobile operators (T-Mobile, ATT, VeriZon, etc), who were *already* going v6-only to the handsets with NAT64/464XLAT for legacy v4. The US is now at around 25% overall, according to Google, or 17% according to Akamai. Interesting how much those numbers vary.
Coming back to the policy discussion, I don't see why keeping 185/8 for new entrants wouldn't be a viable solution. It's the exact thing which was intended when the last /8 policy was created.
As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing. Tim
On 15/04/16 12:21, Tim Chown wrote:
On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Well, no, not if you look at https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, which shows steady IPv6 growth towards Google services (approaching 11% now).
Similarly wrt active IPv6 routes - http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html
What statistics are you referring to?
The policy in the RIPE region means that effectively we’ll “never” run out, but that any new LIR can get a /22 to support public-facing services and some amount of CGNAT. In the ARIN region, they’re on the very last fumes of v4 address space as they had no such policy.
Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode. The smart people are already well into their deployment programmes. But those take time. Comcast were one of the the first, and have benefitted from that. In the UK, Sky’s rollout has resumed, but has been a long-term project where, I believe, they decided that investing in IPv6 was much smarter than investing in bigger CGNATs.
Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed. The RIPE NCC has done a great job in putting out information for several years, and encouraging adoption since at least 2011 - https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre - so the help on IPv6 has been there for the taking...
Tim
With regards, Adrian Pitulac
On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* by this policy, but actually *advantaged*.
If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time?
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Yes. That's the slide I was talking about. I did see something else, somewhere regarding to US IPv6 capability growth also, but I can't remember where right now. It was an entire article. At our company we have implemented IPv6 for 2 years now, and we have made a lot of lobby with our upstream providers at that time to have them support IPv6. I am seeing things also from another viewpoint when I'm asking our customers to implement IPv6 capabilities in their infrastructures, and they are replying that if there are still IPv4 resources available they are not yet interested in investing time and money into this transition. Even if I might appear strange, my personal opinion is that allowing IPv4 transfers created the possibility to prolong for a lot of time the IPv4 life. This also means that IPv6 growth will lag for a long time also based on this decision. Now keeping resources which might prolong IPv4 life again, is another bad thing. Our common interest is that IPv6 reaches the point where it will become the main protocol, so why not think about all the ways to get there as soon as possible. I am looking for anyone who rejects this policy, to provide a *statistic trend *for the period of time allocations will still be possible from the 185/8 for new LIR's, while the IANA blocks be reallocated to existing *small* LIR's. Also a realistic forecast for new LIR's number in the upcoming 1-2-3 years, would be very nice to see and to correlate with my previous statement. As I have told before my personal opinion is that the new LIR number will slowly decrease comparative to 2014/2015. With regards, Adrian Pitulac On 15/04/16 17:09, Tim Chown wrote:
On 15 Apr 2016, at 14:33, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
I'm talking about the statistics presented even at RIPE 71 in Bucharest last year, where IPv6 capability in US grew 5% between 05.2015 and 11.2015. It depends on your view. The Akamai stats at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ suggest 2% increase over the same period, and linear growth that has flattened out a little.
I suspect you mean slide 37 of https://ripe71.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/56-RIPE71-bucharest..., which shows linear/slowing growth over that period, from a high starting point. I don’t think that slide supports your argument at all, and in any event any significant deployment takes time, you can’t just magic it up when an event happens.
And regardless of 2% or 5%, that growth is a mix of residential operators like Comcast, who were deploying anyway during that period, and the mobile operators (T-Mobile, ATT, VeriZon, etc), who were *already* going v6-only to the handsets with NAT64/464XLAT for legacy v4. The US is now at around 25% overall, according to Google, or 17% according to Akamai. Interesting how much those numbers vary.
Coming back to the policy discussion, I don't see why keeping 185/8 for new entrants wouldn't be a viable solution. It's the exact thing which was intended when the last /8 policy was created. As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing.
Tim
On 15/04/16 12:21, Tim Chown wrote:
On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Well, no, not if you look at https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, which shows steady IPv6 growth towards Google services (approaching 11% now).
Similarly wrt active IPv6 routes - http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html
What statistics are you referring to?
The policy in the RIPE region means that effectively we’ll “never” run out, but that any new LIR can get a /22 to support public-facing services and some amount of CGNAT. In the ARIN region, they’re on the very last fumes of v4 address space as they had no such policy.
Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode. The smart people are already well into their deployment programmes. But those take time. Comcast were one of the the first, and have benefitted from that. In the UK, Sky’s rollout has resumed, but has been a long-term project where, I believe, they decided that investing in IPv6 was much smarter than investing in bigger CGNATs.
Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed. The RIPE NCC has done a great job in putting out information for several years, and encouraging adoption since at least 2011 - https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre - so the help on IPv6 has been there for the taking...
Tim
With regards, Adrian Pitulac
On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* by this policy, but actually *advantaged*.
If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time?
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Dear colleagues, is there anyone of you who will vote against that proposal can explain following: Big LIRs (mean with a lot of v4) provide to small ISPs internet+v4 ranges, now, how it is possible the new-LIR with only /22 do the same, i know - no way. In other way the small-ISP can become a LIR, this will continue exhaustion of the last /8 for sure. The situation seems to me big-LIR don't allow new-LIR to grow up... is this cartel or something Cheers, Momchil On 15.4.2016 г. 19:33 ч., Adrian Pitulac wrote:
Yes. That's the slide I was talking about. I did see something else, somewhere regarding to US IPv6 capability growth also, but I can't remember where right now. It was an entire article.
At our company we have implemented IPv6 for 2 years now, and we have made a lot of lobby with our upstream providers at that time to have them support IPv6.
I am seeing things also from another viewpoint when I'm asking our customers to implement IPv6 capabilities in their infrastructures, and they are replying that if there are still IPv4 resources available they are not yet interested in investing time and money into this transition.
Even if I might appear strange, my personal opinion is that allowing IPv4 transfers created the possibility to prolong for a lot of time the IPv4 life. This also means that IPv6 growth will lag for a long time also based on this decision. Now keeping resources which might prolong IPv4 life again, is another bad thing.
Our common interest is that IPv6 reaches the point where it will become the main protocol, so why not think about all the ways to get there as soon as possible.
I am looking for anyone who rejects this policy, to provide a *statistic trend *for the period of time allocations will still be possible from the 185/8 for new LIR's, while the IANA blocks be reallocated to existing *small* LIR's.
Also a realistic forecast for new LIR's number in the upcoming 1-2-3 years, would be very nice to see and to correlate with my previous statement. As I have told before my personal opinion is that the new LIR number will slowly decrease comparative to 2014/2015.
With regards, Adrian Pitulac
On 15/04/16 17:09, Tim Chown wrote:
On 15 Apr 2016, at 14:33, Adrian Pitulac<adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
I'm talking about the statistics presented even at RIPE 71 in Bucharest last year, where IPv6 capability in US grew 5% between 05.2015 and 11.2015. It depends on your view. The Akamai stats athttp://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ suggest 2% increase over the same period, and linear growth that has flattened out a little.
I suspect you mean slide 37 ofhttps://ripe71.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/56-RIPE71-bucharest..., which shows linear/slowing growth over that period, from a high starting point. I don’t think that slide supports your argument at all, and in any event any significant deployment takes time, you can’t just magic it up when an event happens.
And regardless of 2% or 5%, that growth is a mix of residential operators like Comcast, who were deploying anyway during that period, and the mobile operators (T-Mobile, ATT, VeriZon, etc), who were *already* going v6-only to the handsets with NAT64/464XLAT for legacy v4. The US is now at around 25% overall, according to Google, or 17% according to Akamai. Interesting how much those numbers vary.
Coming back to the policy discussion, I don't see why keeping 185/8 for new entrants wouldn't be a viable solution. It's the exact thing which was intended when the last /8 policy was created. As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing.
Tim
On 15/04/16 12:21, Tim Chown wrote:
On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac<adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Well, no, not if you look athttps://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, which shows steady IPv6 growth towards Google services (approaching 11% now).
Similarly wrt active IPv6 routes -http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html
What statistics are you referring to?
The policy in the RIPE region means that effectively we’ll “never” run out, but that any new LIR can get a /22 to support public-facing services and some amount of CGNAT. In the ARIN region, they’re on the very last fumes of v4 address space as they had no such policy.
Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode. The smart people are already well into their deployment programmes. But those take time. Comcast were one of the the first, and have benefitted from that. In the UK, Sky’s rollout has resumed, but has been a long-term project where, I believe, they decided that investing in IPv6 was much smarter than investing in bigger CGNATs.
Also you should take into consideration that in the last 2 years, LIR number growth has been also due to large LIR's selling their pools and this generated a lot of the new LIR's to appear. I don't think we would see the same LIR number growth in the next 2 years. So we should plan accordingly and think about helping LIR's when needed. The RIPE NCC has done a great job in putting out information for several years, and encouraging adoption since at least 2011 -https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre - so the help on IPv6 has been there for the taking...
Tim
With regards, Adrian Pitulac
On 15/04/16 11:41, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote: > The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" > which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against > proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged > against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on. It > simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition. Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged* by this policy, but actually *advantaged*.
If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*. Now they can get a /22. Is that enough? No. Can we fix it, without taking away space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time?
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Big LIRs (mean with a lot of v4) provide to small ISPs internet+v4 ranges, now, how it is possible the new-LIR with only /22 do the same, i know - no way.
As there is no IPv4 available anymore for free, new-LIR can't become a big-LIR without big expenses (but with IPv6). That's a simple rule any new LIR can (and must) understand. If you read your LIR contract it is stated clearly you won't get more from RIPE.
In other way the small-ISP can become a LIR, this will continue exhaustion of the last /8 for sure.
If "small-ISP" really wants to play the serious game, it should become LIR anyway. Denis
Hi, On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 08:27:00PM +0300, Momchil Petrov wrote:
The situation seems to me big-LIR don't allow new-LIR to grow up... is this cartel or something
There is no way a "new-LIR" can grow to, say, a /12 level that some of the big and old Telcos have - which is unfortunate, but we did not make IPv4 with these short addresses. To the contrary: *because* the policy is so restrictive, "new-LIR" can have a business at all - if we had no last-/8 restrictions, RIPE NCC would have run out of addresses over a year ago, so "nothing at all" for new-LIRs. Which is more fair? (And we have this restrictive policy because the *old* LIRs restricted themselves(!) from eating up all the space, leaving something for the new LIRs to come) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Just two small comments.. Correct.. Having last /8 policy permits allowing new LIR to appear.. This is ok and can go on... Is there a reason why IANA blocks redistribution to existing small LIR's will restrict this /8 policy? I don't see it.. Imposing IPv6 deployment with this redistribution will just bring benefits. I'm a little doubtful that old LIR's restricted themselves from eating up all the space. I'm more inclining to believe that certain old LIR's made a big business from this, by creating an artificial market and then sold their free ip pools on the market for a hefty profit. Not to say about the greedy ones who destroyed small ISP's just to make profit from the ip ranges they had. With regards, Adrian Pitulac On 15/04/16 21:23, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
The situation seems to me big-LIR don't allow new-LIR to grow up... is this cartel or something There is no way a "new-LIR" can grow to, say, a /12 level that some of
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 08:27:00PM +0300, Momchil Petrov wrote: the big and old Telcos have - which is unfortunate, but we did not make IPv4 with these short addresses.
To the contrary: *because* the policy is so restrictive, "new-LIR" can have a business at all - if we had no last-/8 restrictions, RIPE NCC would have run out of addresses over a year ago, so "nothing at all" for new-LIRs.
Which is more fair?
(And we have this restrictive policy because the *old* LIRs restricted themselves(!) from eating up all the space, leaving something for the new LIRs to come)
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
* Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> [2016-04-15 21:03]:
I'm a little doubtful that old LIR's restricted themselves from eating up all the space. I'm more inclining to believe that certain old LIR's made a big business from this, by creating an artificial market and then sold their free ip pools on the market for a hefty profit. Not to say about the greedy ones who destroyed small ISP's just to make profit from the ip ranges they had.
If we didn't have the policy the pool would be gone now and new LIRs would be forced to buy addresses on the free market. Don't you think that would've been the goal if "old" LIRs wanted to make money by selling their addresses? Most bigger LIRs make money by connecting people to the internet, believe it or not. The motivation to make money by selling address blocks only started a while ago and by my observation it's not primarily the old LIRs trying to make money from it. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 22:33, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
Most bigger LIRs make money by connecting people to the internet, believe it or not. The motivation to make money by selling address blocks only started a while ago and by my observation it's not
It's not the "selling addresses" part that gives them unfair advantage. It's "being able to include them in the service" (as per customer's demand) that puts them in an unfairly comfortable position. Basically: there is a race. If you are an old competitor, you can compete as usual. If you are a new one (less that 3 years), you start with 10L of fuel and you get a 30 sec penalty every time you refill.
On 16 April 2016 at 20:41, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
Basically: there is a race. If you are an old competitor, you can compete as usual. If you are a new one (less that 3 years), you start with 10L of fuel and you get a 30 sec penalty every time you refill.
The question is, should RIPE be trying to "level the playing field" i.e. interfering in the market? Would it even work if they tried? The argument has been well made that RIPE's role in dishing out IP addresses should be just that - making sure that there will be addresses to give when new members need them, not playing politics, re-jigging the pool of free addresses to "fix" a business problem that a subset of the members believe they are suffering. I'm reminded of government intervention to "fix" the problems of broadband availability where rural areas feel they are disadvantaged. The result? hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money wasted on crap satellite internet connections. Nobody wins. Aled
Hey I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 policy from today on". All those growth thing, when was last time you saw a property developer complaint to Gov that he can not grow his business because he can not get free land? No one would be stopped doing business because of 10% more expenditure(in which at today's v4 price, not even 10%). Naming any possible business form needing IP address, I fairly confident all of them, IP won't count even 5% of their total expenditure. (You pay 1000USD to get your user connected, really 10 more USD will bankrupt you?) So the guys are doing the right business, will grow regardless. The guy aren't even survive IP price, will likely not survive many other things--so why we cares. My suggestions are get over it, leave the v4 alone.
On 17 Apr 2016, at 03:58, Aled Morris <aled.w.morris@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 16 April 2016 at 20:41, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: Basically: there is a race. If you are an old competitor, you can compete as usual. If you are a new one (less that 3 years), you start with 10L of fuel and you get a 30 sec penalty every time you refill.
The question is, should RIPE be trying to "level the playing field" i.e. interfering in the market? Would it even work if they tried?
The argument has been well made that RIPE's role in dishing out IP addresses should be just that - making sure that there will be addresses to give when new members need them, not playing politics, re-jigging the pool of free addresses to "fix" a business problem that a subset of the members believe they are suffering.
I'm reminded of government intervention to "fix" the problems of broadband availability where rural areas feel they are disadvantaged. The result? hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money wasted on crap satellite internet connections. Nobody wins.
Aled
I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 policy from today on".
that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into bureaucratic insanity and drowned it. we could try it here. randy
On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 policy from today on".
that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into bureaucratic insanity and drowned it.
Hoesntly, I think it is best companion policy goes alone with the last /8 policy, as we all know and expected people would love to come back propose to get the last piece of free pile eatted now instead of in few years. V4 are not like guns, someone holding it won't cause danger to anyone. And we don't really dealing with abuse in the policy, and we don't have any v4 left to distribute. So why we need further policy proposal regarding something that policy can not manage, control, distribute, so what for? The policy exists at start mostly for fair distribution, book keeper job so internet can function, now distribution job is done, book keep only requires transparency and easy for anyone update their record honestly without worrying anything, that's how we get best registry job done.
we could try it here.
randy
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 policy from today on". that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into bureaucratic insanity and drowned it. Hoesntly, I think it is best companion policy goes alone with the last /8 policy, as we all know and expected people would love to come back propose to get the last piece of free pile eatted now instead of in few years.
well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. randy
On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4 policy from today on". that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into bureaucratic insanity and drowned it. Hoesntly, I think it is best companion policy goes alone with the last /8 policy, as we all know and expected people would love to come back propose to get the last piece of free pile eatted now instead of in few years.
well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail.
Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you can propose a policy regarding v4. But if it is indeed the only thing you can propose about v4(to distribute last /8 faster than now), and most folks here agree that we shouldn't do that, then it is a simple logic, the only policy you can propose regarding v4 will be something people surely disagree, why would we need future proposal regarding v4. randy
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you can propose a policy regarding v4.
not exactly. one can propose something in the opposite direction; allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24. it may make ipv4 last longer for the new entrants. and a /24 should be sufficient for a large nat. i.e. i was serious the other day. randy
On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you can propose a policy regarding v4.
not exactly. one can propose something in the opposite direction; allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24. it may make ipv4 last longer for the new entrants. and a /24 should be sufficient for a large nat.
i.e. i was serious the other day.
Well, if you do, make sure take the companion policy with you this time:) otherwise we might go though the discussion we had this time(distribute it faster) every year for a very long time:) P.s.i have no objection to future extend the last /8, but simple economics suggest it might not work as new member would be effectively be charged at 5 euro/IP/year if they only get /24, and changing member charging scheme are very difficult and unlikely to happen. But, it does provide an hassal free way for small companies get their own IP address for a long time to come as transfer market are still not that transparent and easy to deal with.
randy
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
On 17/04/16 05:50, Randy Bush wrote:
well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you can propose a policy regarding v4. not exactly. one can propose something in the opposite direction; allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24. it may make ipv4 last longer for the new entrants. and a /24 should be sufficient for a large nat.
i.e. i was serious the other day.
randy
I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that?
Is this your best argument *for* the policy? That you haven't read enough posts well enough to find the arguments against, nor to find the statistics, the trends, the predictions? Seriously? -- Jan
On 17/04/16 10:01, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro <mailto:adrian@idsys.ro>> wrote:
I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that?
Is this your best argument *for* the policy? That you haven't read enough posts well enough to find the arguments against, nor to find the statistics, the trends, the predictions? Seriously? -- Jan
Jan, I think you should read my previous posts, I've come up with several arguments, none of which have been seriously discussed and analyzed. Also FYI I've been reading the discussions here for a long time, and this intervention is my first because I see the same explanation again and again without no base. This should be a discussion on arguments not just a presentation of personal "default" denial of any change to policy. This is what I saw until now. I was under the impression that people here can start a discussion and analyze the *for* and *against* arguments until we reach a conclusion. Am I wrong?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
Jan, I think you should read my previous posts, I've come up with several arguments, none of which have been seriously discussed and analyzed.
I have read your arguments, and they have been previously discussed and analyzed.
Also FYI I've been reading the discussions here for a long time, and this intervention is my first because I see the same explanation again and again without no base.
This should be a discussion on arguments not just a presentation of personal "default" denial of any change to policy. This is what I saw until now. I was under the impression that people here can start a discussion and analyze the *for* and *against* arguments until we reach a conclusion. Am I wrong?
Well, insofar that you yourself have not presented any thorough arguments or analysis yourself, you are right. But others have. That you choose to disregard these arguments and analysis, is really your problem, and your problem alone. Repeating your talking point does not help, and it only makes your arguments look weaker. Frankly, your arguments have made me even more certain that this policy needs to be stopped, and the current policy has to stay in place to ensure some opportunity for future entrants. PS: My point of view directly disadvantages my employer, who could stand to gain financially from the proposal, which allows for more stockpiling of IPv4 resources for future scarcity. -- Jan
Hi, On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 09:52:15AM +0300, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that?
Marco has provided statistics about the IPv4 pool runout, broken down by "185" and "other addresses returned". These show that while the total number of addresses in the NCC stock is sort of "keeping up", about half of 185 is used up - so with the current trend going on, 185 will be used up in 2018-2019 or so https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-last... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi I think an more interesting break down would be the companies' business(e.g the industry they are in) As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the very definition of LIR. The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that group could be. What current ISP doing nowadays, instead of charging customer and apply to RIPE for their customer's IP, they ask their customer come to RIPE to become their own LIR and get their own IP then manage it for the customer. In which, results what we see today, shipping companies, banks, even airlines become LIR. On Sunday 17 April 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 09:52:15AM +0300, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that?
Marco has provided statistics about the IPv4 pool runout, broken down by "185" and "other addresses returned". These show that while the total number of addresses in the NCC stock is sort of "keeping up", about half of 185 is used up - so with the current trend going on, 185 will be used up in 2018-2019 or so
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-last...
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
i'll try to see in the future... Small LIR will register on different company (or daughter) LIR just to take a "only one /22" many other companies will becoma a LIR just to take v4 IPs. It's cheaper than >10 EUR/ip, right (this is already happening). Imagine after some period of time how much voting power they will have ! Well, this proposal may be accepted or may not, but in several years... think about it, will there be a v4 space for a new entrance hmmm Following is to those who will vote "against" Don't think only for the upcoming LIRs, try to understand current ones with "only one /22" ...and don't run away with "membership is for voting, not for space allocation" because with your vote you'll decide allocation p.s. why unused space can be owned by non-working companies? and this space comes on market like "never announced space" - who need of such space Cheers, Momchil On 17.4.2016 г. 11:42 ч., Lu Heng wrote:
Hi
I think an more interesting break down would be the companies' business(e.g the industry they are in)
As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the very definition of LIR.
The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that group could be.
What current ISP doing nowadays, instead of charging customer and apply to RIPE for their customer's IP, they ask their customer come to RIPE to become their own LIR and get their own IP then manage it for the customer. In which, results what we see today, shipping companies, banks, even airlines become LIR.
On Sunday 17 April 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 09:52:15AM +0300, Adrian Pitulac wrote: > I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real > argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just > "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that?
Marco has provided statistics about the IPv4 pool runout, broken down by "185" and "other addresses returned". These show that while the total number of addresses in the NCC stock is sort of "keeping up", about half of 185 is used up - so with the current trend going on, 185 will be used up in 2018-2019 or so
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-last...
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 10:42, Lu Heng wrote:
As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the very definition of LIR.
The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that group could be.
What current ISP doing nowadays, instead of charging customer and apply to RIPE for their customer's IP, they ask their customer come to RIPE to become their own LIR and get their own IP then manage it for the customer. In which, results what we see today, shipping companies, banks, even airlines become LIR.
Hi, This is exactly the point where the community failed. We keep saying that there is no more IPv4, and in the meanwhile more and more companies (non-ISP) discover that they can still get their needed IPv4 space, with the bonus of becoming provider independent. In the process of doing this, they "eat up" a /22 even if they only need a /23 or a /24 (or less, but that can't be routed). At the same time they still hear (for more than 10 years already) that IPv6 is coming, but still don't see it "coming close enough" (no, they don't really care about Google, FB, and Netflix - and if they do, it's more about how to block them).
+100 the statistic saying the same, more and more will be Momchil On 17.4.2016 г. 23:19 ч., Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 10:42, Lu Heng wrote:
As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the very definition of LIR.
The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that group could be.
What current ISP doing nowadays, instead of charging customer and apply to RIPE for their customer's IP, they ask their customer come to RIPE to become their own LIR and get their own IP then manage it for the customer. In which, results what we see today, shipping companies, banks, even airlines become LIR. Hi,
This is exactly the point where the community failed. We keep saying that there is no more IPv4, and in the meanwhile more and more companies (non-ISP) discover that they can still get their needed IPv4 space, with the bonus of becoming provider independent. In the process of doing this, they "eat up" a /22 even if they only need a /23 or a /24 (or less, but that can't be routed).
At the same time they still hear (for more than 10 years already) that IPv6 is coming, but still don't see it "coming close enough" (no, they don't really care about Google, FB, and Netflix - and if they do, it's more about how to block them).
+1 to this policy. Arash Naderpour On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 10:42, Lu Heng wrote:
As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the very definition of LIR.
The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that group could be.
What current ISP doing nowadays, instead of charging customer and apply to RIPE for their customer's IP, they ask their customer come to RIPE to become their own LIR and get their own IP then manage it for the customer. In which, results what we see today, shipping companies, banks, even airlines become LIR.
Hi,
This is exactly the point where the community failed. We keep saying that there is no more IPv4, and in the meanwhile more and more companies (non-ISP) discover that they can still get their needed IPv4 space, with the bonus of becoming provider independent. In the process of doing this, they "eat up" a /22 even if they only need a /23 or a /24 (or less, but that can't be routed).
At the same time they still hear (for more than 10 years already) that IPv6 is coming, but still don't see it "coming close enough" (no, they don't really care about Google, FB, and Netflix - and if they do, it's more about how to block them).
I am in favor this policy Daniela = Daniela Catellani +39 338 8986361 daniela@viaturchetta.it
I think we need something comprehensive such: 1) Allocations of the last /8 reduced to /24, maybe after a trigger point, such as /10 as Tim mention. 2) We want this for only new entrants ? 3) Mandate to have a credible IPv6 deployment plan for those getting 1) simultaneous to the use of the allocated IPv4 resources, which means getting IPv6 allocation at the same time. 4) May be, no new allocations from recovered resources, which may be kept for emergency situations, experiments, or whatever. 5) No new IPv4 policies. We may debate each point as part of a single policy proposal, or split in several in case is difficult to reach consensus. Randy, I will be happy to work on that if you like a co-author. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Responder a: <randy@psg.com> Fecha: domingo, 17 de abril de 2016, 4:50 Para: Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> CC: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you can propose a policy regarding v4.
not exactly. one can propose something in the opposite direction; allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24. it may make ipv4 last longer for the new entrants. and a /24 should be sufficient for a large nat.
i.e. i was serious the other day.
randy
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
5) No new IPv4 policies.
As much as this might seem like a good idea for stopping the endless arguments about changing the last /8 allocation policy, the only thing which will actually put and end to these arguments is final depletion. Everything else is deck-chair rearrangement. Nick
On 17.04.2016 12.43, Nick Hilliard wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
5) No new IPv4 policies. As much as this might seem like a good idea for stopping the endless arguments about changing the last /8 allocation policy, the only thing which will actually put and end to these arguments is final depletion. Everything else is deck-chair rearrangement. I think this is a very good point. While we say that the community is much larger than the RIPE NCC membership, the RIPE NCC membership, which is part of the community, is much larger than this working-group.
With the current growth rate of RIPE NCC membership - the community grows - and the opinion on what is the best policy is changing. What was discussed yesterday may not be as valid tomorrow. Keeping the registry up to date - with correct information - will always be top priority. Lets make sure we do not have policies that affects this. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
On Apr 17, 2016, at 03:31, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
I think we need something comprehensive such:
1) Allocations of the last /8 reduced to /24, maybe after a trigger point, such as /10 as Tim mention. 2) We want this for only new entrants ? 3) Mandate to have a credible IPv6 deployment plan for those getting 1) simultaneous to the use of the allocated IPv4 resources, which means getting IPv6 allocation at the same time. 4) May be, no new allocations from recovered resources, which may be kept for emergency situations, experiments, or whatever. 5) No new IPv4 policies.
We may debate each point as part of a single policy proposal, or split in several in case is difficult to reach consensus.
Randy, I will be happy to work on that if you like a co-author.
Regards, Jordi
I like it. I'm in if more are needed Best, Marty
-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Responder a: <randy@psg.com> Fecha: domingo, 17 de abril de 2016, 4:50 Para: Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> CC: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you can propose a policy regarding v4.
not exactly. one can propose something in the opposite direction; allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24. it may make ipv4 last longer for the new entrants. and a /24 should be sufficient for a large nat.
i.e. i was serious the other day.
randy
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
On 15.04.2016 20.59, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
I'm more inclining to believe that certain old LIR's made a big business from this, by creating an artificial market and then sold their free ip pools on the market for a hefty profit. I do not think this is the case. What I see is that old LIRs holding address space they no longer use, because they are not providing internet services, sell it when they realize it has a value. In many cases address space brokers make an effort tracing down unused space and puts it to use.
I also see new LIRs beeing set up to sell the space for profit. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
On 19 Apr 2016, at 23:21, Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> wrote:
I also see new LIRs beeing set up to sell the space for profit.
That’s regrettable and I wish it stopped. [Well it will when we run out of v4... :-)] But if we could stop this, I suppose those “bad actors” would just acquire space on the secondary market or other sources and that could harm the quality of the info in the RIPE database. Both choices are ugly.
Hi
On 16 Apr 2016, at 02:23, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 08:27:00PM +0300, Momchil Petrov wrote: The situation seems to me big-LIR don't allow new-LIR to grow up... is this cartel or something
There is no way a "new-LIR" can grow to, say, a /12 level that some of the big and old Telcos have - which is unfortunate, but we did not make IPv4 with these short addresses.
Let me add something, if you have a business need /12 and your business can not even raise 10m in cash, seriously, I think there is something wrong with it. So no, new people can still grow to whatever size they want, maybe 10-15% more investment than the "good old time", but anyone who have done investment would tell you in exchange for a successful business, 10-15% more is tolerateble.
To the contrary: *because* the policy is so restrictive, "new-LIR" can have a business at all - if we had no last-/8 restrictions, RIPE NCC would have run out of addresses over a year ago, so "nothing at all" for new-LIRs.
Which is more fair?
(And we have this restrictive policy because the *old* LIRs restricted themselves(!) from eating up all the space, leaving something for the new LIRs to come)
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 16:09, Tim Chown wrote:
As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing.
Tim, This is a good way not to start a business, and if you still do it, not to have many customers. No matter how much you have IPv6 at heart, as of 16/04/2016 on most markets "no IPv4" = "no business". For some customers, they won't use IPv6 even if you bring it at their doorstep. Been there, done that, still doing that.
On 16 Apr 2016, at 12:36, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 16:09, Tim Chown wrote:
As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing.
This is a good way not to start a business, and if you still do it, not to have many customers. No matter how much you have IPv6 at heart, as of 16/04/2016 on most markets "no IPv4" = "no business". For some customers, they won't use IPv6 even if you bring it at their doorstep. Been there, done that, still doing that.
I mean design in IPv6 from the outset, not necessarily to try to run IPv6-only. But there are examples of IPv6-only deployments, and in the UK there is now at least one provider selling VPS services as IPv6 by default, charging extra for IPv4, and finding many customers just take the IPv6-only service. Rare, yes, but it’s happening. The point is, as the RIPE NCC have been saying for 5 years now, that we *are* out of IPv4, except for /22’s which are intended give a new LIR enough address space to host public facing services along with a certain level of customer-base with NAT/CGN. The existing policy gives some level of guarantee of /22’s being available for a certain period of time. As for how much time that is, Geoff Huston’s projection at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/plotend.png is quite widely cited, and indicates 6 more years at current burn rate (i.e. complete run-out around 2022). I would probably support Randy’s /24 proposal, if it were framed around a certain trigger point, i.e. the remaining pool hitting a certain level, maybe a /10’s worth left, such that /24’s were available further out. It will be interest though to see where the market rate for v4 addresses is by then, especially if IPv6 has a much more significant share of the overall traffic. Tim
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 11:21, Tim Chown wrote:
On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac <adrian@idsys.ro> wrote:
but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth.
Well, no, not if you look at https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, which shows steady IPv6 growth towards Google services (approaching 11% now).
That's global. For Canada : http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/CA that's clearly visible. Less so for the US.
Similarly wrt active IPv6 routes - http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html
Route count, like allocations made by RIRs is completely irrelevant. Having IPv6 announced but null-routed at the border and completely absent inside the network (or only present on core equipment) is commonplace.
Adrian, from my PoV we could start to debate you argument: On 15.04.2016 11:02, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
[...]
The discussion regarding the last /8 policy benefit can be long, but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode.
if there aren't *ANY* 2nd market IPv4 brokers operating in the ARIN region *AT ALL*. Which AFAIK is not the case. So fulfilling IPv4 address space needs in the North American region should be, give or take, as cheap or expensive, as easy or complicated as anywhere else. So this effect might only be very loosely coupled at best. How about assuming that the US, North America in general, is simply again leading the pack in eventually deploying a not-so-new-any-longer technology? They have done this already in the past, so I have heart. ;-) Best, -C.
+1 to this policy On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de
wrote:
Adrian,
from my PoV we could start to debate you argument:
On 15.04.2016 11:02, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
[...]
The discussion regarding the last /8 policy benefit can be long, but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode.
if there aren't *ANY* 2nd market IPv4 brokers operating in the ARIN region *AT ALL*.
Which AFAIK is not the case.
So fulfilling IPv4 address space needs in the North American region should be, give or take, as cheap or expensive, as easy or complicated as anywhere else.
So this effect might only be very loosely coupled at best.
How about assuming that the US, North America in general, is simply again leading the pack in eventually deploying a not-so-new-any-longer technology? They have done this already in the past, so I have heart. ;-)
Best,
-C.
Adrian,
from my PoV we could start to debate you argument:
On 15.04.2016 11:02, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
[...]
The discussion regarding the last /8 policy benefit can be long, but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, resulted directly in IPV6 growth. Everyone talks about why RIPE IPv6 hasn't exploded. I think the reason is IPv4 pools still available. If market will be constrained by lack of IPv4 pools then IPv6 will explode. if there aren't *ANY* 2nd market IPv4 brokers operating in the ARIN region *AT ALL*.
Which AFAIK is not the case.
So fulfilling IPv4 address space needs in the North American region should be, give or take, as cheap or expensive, as easy or complicated as anywhere else.
So this effect might only be very loosely coupled at best.
How about assuming that the US, North America in general, is simply again leading the pack in eventually deploying a not-so-new-any-longer technology? They have done this already in the past, so I have heart. ;-)
Best,
-C.
Even though US/NorthAmerica is again leading the pack deploying IPv6, they had an incentive in IPv4 depletion. On our side, entities do whatever tricks (ex: creating multiple LIR's, even in different countries), to gain access to more IPv4 resources in any way possible. Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get another IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small entities to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing investments also. They will start providing IPv6 services and this way we'll see an objective accomplishment. So, I'm convinced that this policy will fuel IPv6 implementation at a certain level.
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get another IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small entities to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing investments also. They will start providing IPv6 services and this way we'll see an objective accomplishment.
If you change this to: "Provides IPv6 services by default to all customers who haven't explicitly opted out", I might be tempted to support this policy proposal. However, I think that would put undue burden on RIPE to verify the IPv6 deployment of the LIR in question for them to qualify for another /22 after 18 months.
So, I'm convinced that this policy will fuel IPv6 implementation at a certain level.
Checkboxing 3 star IPv6 RIPEness is easy, unfortunately it has very little to do with real actual widespread IPv6 deployment. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On 18/04/16 18:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get another IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small entities to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing investments also. They will start providing IPv6 services and this way we'll see an objective accomplishment.
If you change this to: "Provides IPv6 services by default to all customers who haven't explicitly opted out", I might be tempted to support this policy proposal. However, I think that would put undue burden on RIPE to verify the IPv6 deployment of the LIR in question for them to qualify for another /22 after 18 months.
So, I'm convinced that this policy will fuel IPv6 implementation at a certain level.
Checkboxing 3 star IPv6 RIPEness is easy, unfortunately it has very little to do with real actual widespread IPv6 deployment.
I'm for changing the policy as needed to make this sustainable and also get real benefit (in terms of IPv6 implementation) from it. This is what I proposed from the start in my interventions here.. Let's discuss and see if we can find a way to gain benefit from this policy. I'm sure that the policy proposers, will look carefully and take into consideration any viable idea.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, at 17:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get another IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small entities to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing investments also. They will start providing IPv6 services and this way we'll see an objective accomplishment.
If you change this to: "Provides IPv6 services by default to all customers who haven't explicitly opted out", I might be tempted to support this policy proposal. However, I think that would put undue burden on RIPE to verify the IPv6 deployment of the LIR in question for them to qualify for another /22 after 18 months.
If it can get more support, why not ? 5 stars, why not ? (actually I have some idea why, and it wouldn't bother me) We have already discussed this with NCC staff, things are complex, but any new idea is welcome.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: <snip>
If it can get more support, why not ? 5 stars, why not ? (actually I have some idea why, and it wouldn't bother me) <snip>
To me it seems like there are a not so minor misunderstanding right here. It is not so much about getting MORE support, since we do not vote. What we do are working toward a overall good solution. Unfortunately there are no real good solution, our only option is to change protocol, and with that change some pain will follow which it seems like you and other are experience. Embrace the future, don't run from it and avoid facing it, that is my suggestion. The current policy is there to keep some space in reserve for future startups so they can have _some_ IPv4 space for whatever reason, it is NOT there to give current startups enough IPv4 space, that is just not possible. All pools are either empty or they are running out, and due to ongoing cleanup we are so lucky that there has been IPv4 space returned so the runout will take longer, that is we have _some_ IPv4 space longer than we initial thought was possible! Let us not waste that with being greedy here and now. The only IPv4 left are what can be found from redistribution or splitting up of already allocated IPv4 space, that has it's own ballpark of trouble associated with it, an entire different discussion. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
Why not just check for AAAA record for their main site and mention of IPv6 somewhere, like "/X for every customer on every tariff" or something similar depending on the market ? It may put enough pressure for them to actually roll it out. I don't support this proposal in it's current state though. It won't help IPv6 rollout as it is, it can actually make it worse because some LIRs will be able to postpone it even more. But if combined with additional incentives...it might just work. Although ideas of only giving /24 to those who don't need more, and probably just /24 after some arbitrary depletion state (/10?) would be great as well. Anyone writing a policy for that yet ? On 18.04.2016 18:56, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Adrian Pitulac wrote:
Having a condition like 3 star IPv6 RIPEness to be able to get another IPv4 block each 18 months will provide enough thrust to small entities to enable IPv6 in their networks and this way doing investments also. They will start providing IPv6 services and this way we'll see an objective accomplishment.
If you change this to: "Provides IPv6 services by default to all customers who haven't explicitly opted out", I might be tempted to support this policy proposal. However, I think that would put undue burden on RIPE to verify the IPv6 deployment of the LIR in question for them to qualify for another /22 after 18 months.
So, I'm convinced that this policy will fuel IPv6 implementation at a certain level.
Checkboxing 3 star IPv6 RIPEness is easy, unfortunately it has very little to do with real actual widespread IPv6 deployment.
Hi, On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 16:55, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
Why not just check for AAAA record for their main site and mention of IPv6 somewhere, like "/X for every customer on every tariff" or something similar depending on the market ?
It may put enough pressure for them to actually roll it out.
Let's not put our marketing departments in the loop. Some of them get scared (for nothing).
I don't support this proposal in it's current state though. It won't help IPv6 rollout as it is, it can actually make it worse because some LIRs will be able to postpone it even more. But if combined with additional incentives...it might just work.
Some tiny bit of (free) IPv4 is the incentive. I can't find better. Just need to make sure the condition is well-written.
Although ideas of only giving /24 to those who don't need more, and probably just /24 after some arbitrary depletion state (/10?) would be great as well. Anyone writing a policy for that yet ?
That was part of the initial idea (see https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf )
On 21.04.2016 00:27, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 16:55, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
Why not just check for AAAA record for their main site and mention of IPv6 somewhere, like "/X for every customer on every tariff" or something similar depending on the market ?
It may put enough pressure for them to actually roll it out.
Let's not put our marketing departments in the loop. Some of them get scared (for nothing).
They have to deal with that anyway sooner or later. Also it might become an additional pressure, "our rivals have this strange thing called IPv6 on their site, can we do it too?".
I don't support this proposal in it's current state though. It won't help IPv6 rollout as it is, it can actually make it worse because some LIRs will be able to postpone it even more. But if combined with additional incentives...it might just work.
Some tiny bit of (free) IPv4 is the incentive. I can't find better. Just need to make sure the condition is well-written.
There is also a problem with IPv6 roll-outs that it's usually (almost always?) bigger guys, but smaller companies will lag behind for years if not decades. Small incentive for small companies to keep up ?
Although ideas of only giving /24 to those who don't need more, and probably just /24 after some arbitrary depletion state (/10?) would be great as well. Anyone writing a policy for that yet ?
That was part of the initial idea (see https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf )
Thanks ! Apparently I missed that. Then I think it needs to be considered again, with or without additional allocation.
On 21 Apr 2016, at 11:38, Stepan Kucherenko <twh@megagroup.ru> wrote:
There is also a problem with IPv6 roll-outs that it's usually (almost always?) bigger guys, but smaller companies will lag behind for years if not decades. Small incentive for small companies to keep up ?
Not true in the UK at least. Residential IPv6 service has been led by a number of ‘smaller’ ISPs, for many years. It’s only in the last few months that we’ve seen one of the big ISPs starting to make IPv6 available to their customers; having started the visible roll-out last September, Sky UK are expecting to have well over 90% of their users enabled by July, and all new subscribers are already getting IPv6 by default. Tim
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 12:38, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
They have to deal with that anyway sooner or later. Also it might become an additional pressure, "our rivals have this strange thing called IPv6 on their site, can we do it too?".
At which point I prefer being in the situation of telling them "doing this for years already. next."
There is also a problem with IPv6 roll-outs that it's usually (almost always?) bigger guys, but smaller companies will lag behind for years if not decades. Small incentive for small companies to keep up ?
Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???) Big guys are almost never the first (but can start really early) and rarely among the last (even if they can wait a really long time).
Although ideas of only giving /24 to those who don't need more, and probably just /24 after some arbitrary depletion state (/10?) would be great as well. Anyone writing a policy for that yet ?
That was part of the initial idea (see https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf )
Then I think it needs to be considered again, with or without additional allocation.
At some point yes, that's something that should be done somehow.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???)
This is a part of reasoning I don't understand. "We would like for you to stop drinking Coca-Cola (IPv4) and instead drink water (IPv6). Here, have some more Coca-Cola." How is that an incentive for drinking water? It's not. It's an incentive for _continuing_ drinking Coca-Cola, because hey, maybe the nice fools will give you more Coca-Cola also the next time you run out. -- Jan
Jan, Allow me to translate this to your way of seeing it.. :) Coca-Cola is ending soon, so no one could get any.. There are parties who never drank water, so based on the the policy, they are given a little coca-cola if they start drinking water (IPv6). This if in their help so they can get used to water and start drinking it as coca-cola will end soon. The condition for IPv6 implementation is a must and might be even tougher in this policy as discussed here. Hope I've cleared things for you.. On 22/04/16 08:24, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net <mailto:ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>> wrote:
Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???)
This is a part of reasoning I don't understand.
"We would like for you to stop drinking Coca-Cola (IPv4) and instead drink water (IPv6). Here, have some more Coca-Cola."
How is that an incentive for drinking water?
It's not. It's an incentive for _continuing_ drinking Coca-Cola, because hey, maybe the nice fools will give you more Coca-Cola also the next time you run out.
-- Jan
believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that decision is driven by very different business cases. the purpose of the last /8 policy was to let new entrants have teenie bits of ipv4 to join the internet, which will require v4 for a long while. randy
On 22.04.2016 11:05, Randy Bush wrote:
believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that decision is driven by very different business cases.
the purpose of the last /8 policy was to let new entrants have teenie bits of ipv4 to join the internet, which will require v4 for a long while.
randy
Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial IPv4 allocation was made. But with additional allocation it IS possible to check if they even done anything in that time. I have no illusions, giving additional allocations is basically a small financial incentive that will only be worth it for small players. It has little value as of original proposal, which I oppose (no strings attached, just get your space and prolong your IPv4 existence). But it might be used to push some of smaller LIRs to IPv6 if we add additional requirements. 5-stars RIPEness with even higher thresholds + AAAA on main site + IPv6 as part of usual services to customers ? It will be hard to achieve without actual rollout, and additional allocations to LIRs will be either small in number or useful.
Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial IPv4 allocation was made.
Can you elaborate a bit please ? Denis
I mean if there is a new LIR who gets his initial /22 allocation and /32 IPv6 allocation, it doesn't mean he will do anything with that /32 IPv6. And it's not possible to check if he will do that. But if in a couple of years he comes for additional /22, RIPE can check if he actually rolled out and accept or deny his request based on that. That way LIRs can plan and execute IPv6 rollout if they want more legacy space, or don't and live with what was given to them at the start. On 22.04.2016 12:08, Denis Fondras wrote:
Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial IPv4 allocation was made.
Can you elaborate a bit please ?
Denis
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 10:46, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial IPv4 allocation was made. But with additional allocation it IS possible to check if they even done anything in that time.
Right now, there's no string attached. As long as the issue of "new player, get IPv6 ASAP" one of the 2 ways to achieve this is to stop handing out allocations directly, but "lease" them for X months/years, and recover it if no IPv6 has been deployed in the meanwhile. The complexity of such a thing is much higher, but if anybody would find the good wording for this, I would support. The second one would be "no more IPv4 at all". We're not there yet.
5-stars RIPEness with even higher thresholds + AAAA on main site + IPv6 as part of usual services to customers ? It will be hard to achieve without actual rollout, and additional allocations to LIRs will be either small in number or useful.
I agree, with the reserve of clearly defining "main site".
Hi Randy, Il 22/04/2016 10:05, Randy Bush ha scritto:
believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that decision is driven by very different business cases. I can assure that I am doing any effort to do it. The way I can, but doing it. I also have customers asking the same time: IPv4 resources and cusultin service about IPv6 Most common case is "can you give me this some resources for my project? In the while we want to start IPv6 can you help us in doing it?" normally is /27 to /25. reiceved one request for one /23
the purpose of the last /8 policy was to let new entrants have teenie bits of ipv4 to join the internet, which will require v4 for a long while. I cannot be against this. But if it was so easy someone should explain why existing LIRs already holding address space can submit a request for one /22 from pool after 09/2012 Not discriminate between LIRs sizes is a point but for competitiveness we can't say a /22 is enought to survive on the market today.
randy
-- 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) --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 07:24, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
Small guys are either among the first or among the last to do it. You can find incetives from them (??? extra /22 ???)
This is a part of reasoning I don't understand.
"We would like for you to stop drinking Coca-Cola (IPv4) and instead drink water (IPv6). Here, have some more Coca-Cola."
How is that an incentive for drinking water?
You are talking about people addicted to Coca-Cola. You can't just ask them to plain stop drinking Coca-Cola, as long as you have some (and even if you no longer have, it's still difficult). You can just say "If you start drinking water, there may be some small amounts until you fully switch to water". At least that's the idea. And it's suposed to only be applied to small guys, since the big ones still have large stocks to support the transition.
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
You are talking about people addicted to Coca-Cola. You can't just ask them to plain stop drinking Coca-Cola, as long as you have some (and even if you no longer have, it's still difficult).
People can be as addicted to using ipv4 addresses as they want. It changes nothing: the supply of previously unused address blocks is running out, and the only issue with allocation of the remainder is how to allocate them rather than the uncomfortable reality that they will soon disappear completely and we will have no options for internet connectivity other than ipv6 and the ipv4 address market. Regarding the current allocation policies, you still have not addressed the query that several people have raised about why it is better to shut off opportunities for future internet service market entrants than it is to make things marginally easier for a small segment of the existing market for a short period of time, other than "but it hurts". Nick
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 15:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Regarding the current allocation policies, you still have not addressed the query that several people have raised about why it is better to shut off opportunities for future internet service market entrants than it is to make things marginally easier for a small segment of the existing market for a short period of time, other than "but it hurts".
Hi, I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, no matter what" approach. For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the solution is not working yet" situation. Pain management. The only solution right now is pain suppressors. Some have stocks, some just get enough to see it's possible but not enough to get to a point where they can get on by themselves. Only a few are not affected at all.
Hi,
I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, no matter what" approach. For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the solution is not working yet" situation. Pain management. The only solution right now is pain suppressors. Some have stocks, some just get enough to see it's possible but not enough to get to a point where they can get on by themselves. Only a few are not affected at all.
Whilst this thread had already seen enough metaphors today, unless you know how long the pain is going to last, how do you know if we have enough painkillers? Cheers, Rob
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, no matter what" approach. For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the solution is not working yet" situation.
and your solution is that you want future market entrants to suffer more than you're suffering now because there will be no address space whatsoever left for them? Nick
Hi Fairly speaking, if market price above certain point, people will deplete the pool really fast, as long as it makes business sense. Unless we start using /24 policy in which effectively encourage people seek growth in the transfer market---in which it is what it should be, is not such a bad idea.
On 23 Apr 2016, at 00:00, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, no matter what" approach. For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the solution is not working yet" situation.
and your solution is that you want future market entrants to suffer more than you're suffering now because there will be no address space whatsoever left for them?
Nick
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 18:00, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible, no matter what" approach. For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the solution is not working yet" situation.
and your solution is that you want future market entrants to suffer more than you're suffering now because there will be no address space whatsoever left for them?
They will eventually do it anyway. And I really don't belive that with the new proposal it will be in 18 months whereas with the current one it will be in more than 5 years. Those being said, historically, many new (small) entrants were not becoming LIRs from day 1. They were usually starting with some space from an existing LIR, some of them going multihomed with that space, and only then becoming LIR and having "their own space". The transfer market is discouraging this, and the limited space is also pushing many of them to become LIR not because they really want to, but because some upstream providers encourage them to do so in order to save their own space ("wanna /24 - become LIR"). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the solution is not working yet" situation.
what solution is not working for you? randy, running v6 commercially since '97
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016, at 04:53, Randy Bush wrote:
For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the solution is not working yet" situation.
what solution is not working for you?
Commercially, IPv6 does not work. IPv4 does, it's even required. Companies (non-IT ones) don't care about IPv6 yet. They just want their fixed IPv4 or IPv4 block (/29 and up) for their internet connections - can't provide it, somebody else (usually big/old player) can.
randy, running v6 commercially since '97
Like selling IPv6-based services with no or degraded IPv4 ?
On 22/04/16 16:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Regarding the current allocation policies, you still have not addressed the query that several people have raised about why it is better to shut off opportunities for future internet service market entrants than it is to make things marginally easier for a small segment of the existing market for a short period of time, other than "but it hurts".
Nick I think this has not been expressed directly, but IPv6 implementation obligations in this policy might be the reason why it could be MUCH better than existing policy who offers the opportunities for future entrants but does not have a long term solution for the real problem (IPv4 exhaustion).
Adrian Pitulac wrote:
I think this has not been expressed directly, but IPv6 implementation obligations in this policy might be the reason why it could be MUCH better than existing policy who offers the opportunities for future entrants but does not have a long term solution for the real problem (IPv4 exhaustion).
If you think ipv6 implementation obligations are a good idea, then please feel free to put forward a separate policy to introduce them, but don't confuse them with changing the last /8 allocation policies because they are fundamentally different things. Incidentally, the reason Randy Bush wrote this earlier this morning:
believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that decision is driven by very different business cases.
... was because he - and many other people - watched for several years as top-down policy obligations to implement OSI protocols as communication standards failed utterly and beyond hope. They failed because top-down decrees don't work. As a separate issue, the RIPE NCC is not in the business of telling its members how to run their networks. Nick
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 17:37, Nick Hilliard wrote:
As a separate issue, the RIPE NCC is not in the business of telling its members how to run their networks.
Still a somehow separate issue, it shouldn't be in the "sell IPs" business neither, but it looks like it's exactly what it's doing with the multiple-LIR stuff. Follow-up 27/05.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
You are talking about people addicted to Coca-Cola. You can't just ask them to plain stop drinking Coca-Cola, as long as you have some (and even if you no longer have, it's still difficult). You can just say "If you start drinking water, there may be some small amounts until you fully switch to water". At least that's the idea. And it's suposed to only be applied to small guys, since the big ones still have large stocks to support the transition.
I'm sorry, this reasoning simply doesn't make sense to me, in spite of the slightly condescending answer from Adrian, and your continued use of the analogy. There is little evidence to support that line of reasoning, and all too much against it. Additionally, little thought seems to have been spent considering how this should be implemented, I mostly see some hand-waving here. My feeling is that this policy will serve two groups in particular: - Speculants - Spammers who want "clean" IPv4 space for their ventures, because IPv6 spamming isn't useful yet While this clearly isn't the intent you have stated in your policy, I believe this is what it will be used for, regrettably. -- Jan
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:41, Gert Doering wrote:
If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small
Gert, ARIN didn't run out dry (contrary to the popular behaviour). They barely entered some sort of "last /10" (23.128.0.0/10) , which is very restrictive. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:17, Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson@sky.uk> wrote:
I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop.
+100
We have a working policy, and we should stick with it.
+100
Hi, On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:17, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop. We have a working policy, and we should stick with it.
I'm not sure everyone has the same view of "working".
Anyway, I’ve registered my objection – I’m done with this unless the text changes.
Noted.
Hi, On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:59:55PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
I would hope that large LIRs don't make objections to this proposal just because they don't see any benefit to them - that come come across as selfish.
Objections or support for a proposal is made by individuals, not by organizations. Individuals may happen to work for large or small LIRs, or not for a LIR at all - *but* people with lots of experience, and based on that, some foresight, might end up in senior positions in large LIRs... so look at the arguments, not at what domain is in the mail address. (Turning the argument around: "small LIRs asking *for* this proposal" is selfish as well, no?) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, All LIRs should be treated equally, regardless of what size they are or how old they are. That is why the current charging scheme taxes all LIRs equally now. If you hold more resources, it doesn't mean you have more money (to purchase from the free market). Just as the last /8 states now, ALL LIRs are allowed to request a one time allocation of a /22. This should be kept in the new proposal as well. So in my opinion, the condition regarding the size of the LIR should be taken out completely. The condition regarding transfering resources out of the LIR is ok, but there should be a limit there as well - for example "in the last two years preceeding the new request", just like transfer is prohibited for two years after they receive resources (transfers or allocations from RIPE). We have to consider the fact that RIPE servers a very large comunity with A LOT of countries that are unstable economically and politically. So if for example, during a crisis (war, hostile takeover of territories, international sanctions, economy falling, etc), a company decides to cut down it's activity to a minimum, they transfer the freed resources. But if in two years the economic/politic situation changes and they've grown since then, they should be able to request additional resources (as per the proposed policy). IPv6 deployment and usage must be a firm criteria for the additional allocation, just like it was in the begining for the /22 request from 185/8 range. Maybe even a more strict documentation of this usage should be enforced (not simply announcing for example, for example a 5 star rating ... Something definite that can show continuos actual usage of IPv6). Regards, Matei Storch Profisol Telecom 0728.555.004
On 14 apr. 2016, at 18:02, Dominik Nowacki <dominik@clouvider.co.uk> wrote:
And why is that Ian ?
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dickinson, Ian Sent: 14 April 2016 16:01 To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
I object to this proposal as written.
I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR.
Ian
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 14 April 2016 13:42 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.
Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
Hi,
I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR.
I almost agree with you, and it's the difference between a LIR that holds a /21 and one that holds a /20 that's concerning me, but with a feeling that an extra /22 may be of far more use to an LIR that only holds a /22 to one that has, say, /14 of space. The RIPE community has tried to walk a line between keeping IPv4 addresses back to ensure new entrants can join the market, and not needlessly hoarding addresses. The problem with that approach is that we are forever doomed to make small adjustments to the policy to keep that balance. Give or take a bit of fluctuation when the IANA doles out a bit more returned space, the pool of available IPv4 space the NCC has is about the same now as it was three years ago, but we're about half-way through 185/8: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio... Interestingly that graph doesn't appear to show much of a change following the "multiple LIR" decision at the last meeting. One /16 out of the final /8 is reserved for some future need, which means that there are ~16,320 /22s in that block. Let's say that's in the same order of magniture as there are RIPE NCC members (12,830 at the end of 2015), but it's not a large breathing gap. The NCC only has about 8,000 /22s outside 185/8 (at the moment), so it all depends on what we want to classify as distributing them fairly. Another /22 for those that need it? How much will that pool continue to grow? Is there a distribution of number of members by address space they hold? I'm also not sure about the "RIPEness" requirement. It's an interesting metric, but why three rather than four? Should we be encoding in policy a requirement that the NCC can change at will? My personal opinion (working on a network that's offered IPv6 in some way shape or form for 19 years), is that how I run my network is my (or perhaps more importantly, my customers') business. Still, at least it gives us something to talk about in Address Policy. Life would be boring otherwise. Cheers, Rob
Hi Rob, just about three stars and not more: with 3 stars you have a working IPv6 deployment but you are not listed as RIPEness 'cause of absence of reverse delegation for IPv6 If you host DNS servers for reverse delegation outside of you network on a IPv4 only provider you can't reach 4 or 5 stars even with a perfectly working IPv6 deployment 3 stars looked to be a first good step to "taste" IPv6 hope this helps regards Riccardo Il 14/04/2016 17:37, Rob Evans ha scritto:
Hi,
I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR. I almost agree with you, and it's the difference between a LIR that holds a /21 and one that holds a /20 that's concerning me, but with a feeling that an extra /22 may be of far more use to an LIR that only holds a /22 to one that has, say, /14 of space.
The RIPE community has tried to walk a line between keeping IPv4 addresses back to ensure new entrants can join the market, and not needlessly hoarding addresses. The problem with that approach is that we are forever doomed to make small adjustments to the policy to keep that balance.
Give or take a bit of fluctuation when the IANA doles out a bit more returned space, the pool of available IPv4 space the NCC has is about the same now as it was three years ago, but we're about half-way through 185/8:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio...
Interestingly that graph doesn't appear to show much of a change following the "multiple LIR" decision at the last meeting.
One /16 out of the final /8 is reserved for some future need, which means that there are ~16,320 /22s in that block. Let's say that's in the same order of magniture as there are RIPE NCC members (12,830 at the end of 2015), but it's not a large breathing gap.
The NCC only has about 8,000 /22s outside 185/8 (at the moment), so it all depends on what we want to classify as distributing them fairly. Another /22 for those that need it? How much will that pool continue to grow? Is there a distribution of number of members by address space they hold?
I'm also not sure about the "RIPEness" requirement. It's an interesting metric, but why three rather than four? Should we be encoding in policy a requirement that the NCC can change at will? My personal opinion (working on a network that's offered IPv6 in some way shape or form for 19 years), is that how I run my network is my (or perhaps more importantly, my customers') business.
Still, at least it gives us something to talk about in Address Policy. Life would be boring otherwise.
Cheers, Rob
-- 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) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Riccardo, Thanks for the reply.
with 3 stars you have a working IPv6 deployment but you are not listed as RIPEness 'cause of absence of reverse delegation for IPv6 If you host DNS servers for reverse delegation outside of you network on a IPv4 only provider you can't reach 4 or 5 stars even with a perfectly working IPv6 deployment 3 stars looked to be a first good step to "taste" IPv6
This is what leads me to think the policy panders to one specific category of LIR. Either have no IPv6 requirements, or require IPv6 available to all customers. I think it is reckless to quadruple the amount of scarce IPv4 space given to new entrants at the cost to future entrants, and in case it wasn't clear from yesterday's email, I'm afraid I do not support this policy. All the best, Rob
i do not support pigs at the last /8 trough the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY. pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything. randy
Perhaps you'd care to keep this discussion Civil? Kind Regards, Dom -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: 14 April 2016 18:24 To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) i do not support pigs at the last /8 trough the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY. pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything. randy
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote:
the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY.
The *single* "last /8" (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most people consider new entry. Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve "new entry". Did you actually read the new text ?
pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything.
No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
I was in support of relaxing the allocation rules for existing lirs as long as the organisation that might benefit from extra IPs did transfer ( or Sell ) IP space previously allocated, to prevent further abuse. But I can see the principal of protecting Ip space for new entrants is much fairer and more sustainable than what would be a short sighted gain of 1024 addresses every 18 months..for existing Lirs, Im against this proposal ... i can see the benefit of having addresses for new entrants to the market.. No more flip flopping from me on this proposal Thanks... On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote:
the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY.
The *single* "last /8" (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most people consider new entry. Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve "new entry". Did you actually read the new text ?
pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything.
No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs.
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
-- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 --------------------------------- PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.
sorry minor edit , major change
I was in support of relaxing the allocation rules for existing lirs as long as the organisation that might benefit from extra IPs *did NOT* transfer ( or Sell ) IP space previously allocated, to prevent further abuse.
But I can see the principal of protecting Ip space for new entrants is much fairer and more sustainable than what would be a short sighted gain of 1024 addresses every 18 months..for existing Lirs,
Im against this proposal ... i can see the benefit of having addresses for new entrants to the market..
No more flip flopping from me on this proposal
Thanks...
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote:
the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY.
The *single* "last /8" (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most people consider new entry. Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve "new entry". Did you actually read the new text ?
pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything.
No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs.
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
-- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth
Mobile: +353 87 6193172 --------------------------------- PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.
-- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 --------------------------------- PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.
Hi Radu and Ricardo (& AP community members), I looked at the policy text and also checked if there would be an option to just ‘hand out’ an additional /22 to all current LIR’s.. If we currently have about 12.000 members .. and hand out additional /22’s to each of them, it will cost 12 milj addresses ( more or less..) ( as it would be more fair than discriminating on current size and age of an LIR … ) The current pool is about 16.4 milj addresses left.. and in the last 3 years, they have handed out 9 milj. addresses. As there probably won’t come more than 32.000 addresses back from IANA .. and not much more space to be expected from de-registration of PI space.. The pool won’t grow much more than it is currently … So handing out 12 milj. addresses in a single gift.. without the hard requirement to not allow final /8 policy received IP space to be transferred, will most likely only increase the run-out of the IP space and not fix anything.. The real issue is, this policy change won’t fix anything at all … it will make things impossible for the near future. The replenishment from IANA will stop, so the actual pool will go down. With the actual rate of 9 milj per 3 years.. that means that at the current rate, the current pool will last for about 5.3 years. ( looking at an avg of 3 milj per year. ) If we hand out 12 milj. Addresses of the 16.4 milj. We have 4.4 milj. addresses left.. meaning that we will have a full run-out within 18 months. These are the numbers that we are currently looking at. They might change a bit, off by a couple months perhaps.. but the difference is an issue of fully running out within 18 months or 5.3 years. So as we need more time for companies to fully move over to IPv6 .. and we need to be able to hand out a /22 IPv4 for CGNAT for new entrance to the market in order to be able to compete.. ( As that was the actual reason to implement the last /8 policy..) So taking all this in mind, this policy change is a bad decision imho. Yes I know that you are trying to discriminate in the policy by saying, no transfers done in the past, not more than 4k IPv4 etc etc.. but that is just semantics.. it won’t fix the overall policy you are trying to implement. So perhaps a long answer to say that I won't support it. Regards, Erik Bais
Hi Erik, On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 22:07, Erik Bais wrote:
If we currently have about 12.000 members .. and hand out additional /22’s to each of them, it will cost 12 milj addresses ( more or less..) ( as it would be more fair than discriminating on current size and age of an LIR … )
We won't "hand them out". We live them the choice to ask. Please note that some of them didn't request their /22 as per current policy.
The pool won’t grow much more than it is currently …
We are aware.
So handing out 12 milj. addresses in a single gift.. without the hard
Again, we are not doing this in a "single gift". Or at least it is not what we wanted to say.
requirement to not allow final /8 policy received IP space to be transferred, will most likely only increase the run-out of the IP space and not fix anything..
This is something worth discussing. I think enough people were complaining about this in order to start discussing this more seriously.
If we hand out 12 milj. Addresses of the 16.4 milj. We have 4.4 milj. addresses left.. meaning that we will have a full run-out within 18 months.
Then again, we are not talking about handing out in one shot ! Otherwise, I can understand your point of view. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On 14.04.2016 22.07, Erik Bais wrote:
but the difference is an issue of fully running out within 18 months or 5.3 years. Thanks for a very useful analysis Erik. I think this is the key point - does the community want to put priority short term or longer term?
-- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Dear colleagues, I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal. Kind regards, Remco (no hats) On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.
Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
I agree with you. I'm also not in favor. Best, Marty On Apr 14, 2016, at 15:50, remco van mook <remco.vanmook@gmail.com<mailto:remco.vanmook@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear colleagues, I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal. Kind regards, Remco (no hats) On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net<mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> wrote: Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ripe.net_participate_policies_proposals_2015-2D05&d=CwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=XDN_BIPGnpb6V0w5M9FADw&m=fPDdGXqdnuzVbTxXGpuDtdt_Rs31wbjrMOA6fE3llRU&s=2BJyRRzkJ9JP1Voio95ZSGxpMEkKS0xnKBa7OUei0VM&e=> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On Apr 14, 2016, at 15:50, remco van mook <remco.vanmook@gmail.com <mailto:remco.vanmook@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now.
The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal.
I agree with Remco, and thus share his objection. Tim
Good Morning Remco, Good Morning List, 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 that in the meanwhile has been abused in several ways and there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption. There was only one requirement to obtain one IPv4 /22: request and obtain at least from /32 IPv6 to a maximum of /29 IPv6. Am I wrong or this requirement has been removed?!?! Please explain that to a new entrant... What does it mean? "we are running out. here your crumbs, sorry we have no solution" ?!? If for you last /8 policy is a success to me IPv6 incentives policies looks absent. We completly failed from this point of view. If you look at this where IPv4 exhaustion took place IPv6 is strongly gowing: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it to grow. kind regards Riccardo Il 15/04/2016 00:50, remco van mook ha scritto:
Dear colleagues,
I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now.
The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal.
Kind regards,
Remco (no hats)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.
Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>>.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
-- 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) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Riccardo,
with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8 policy.
The fact that you don’t see it, doesn’t make it less true. RIPE IPv4 is out … the reservation of space for IXP’s and other uses ( like future new entrance ) doesn’t change that. This is not something we have to explain .. this is not something that we will change. The /22 IPv4 is not for new entrance to assign to customers.. it is to enable them to communicate via a CGNAT from a v6 world to a v4 world. If you don’t use the obtained v4 space for the intended use, it will never be enough and you will always feel incorrectly treated … This policy proposal (with all respect to you and Radu and good intentions) needs to stop as it gives people hope on something that isn’t there ... Regards, Erik Bais Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Riccardo Gori Verzonden: vrijdag 15 april 2016 7:49 Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net; remco.vanmook@gmail.com Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Good Morning Remco, Good Morning List, 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 that in the meanwhile has been abused in several ways and there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption. There was only one requirement to obtain one IPv4 /22: request and obtain at least from /32 IPv6 to a maximum of /29 IPv6. Am I wrong or this requirement has been removed?!?! Please explain that to a new entrant... What does it mean? "we are running out. here your crumbs, sorry we have no solution" ?!? If for you last /8 policy is a success to me IPv6 incentives policies looks absent. We completly failed from this point of view. If you look at this where IPv4 exhaustion took place IPv6 is strongly gowing: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-ado... <https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption> &tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it to grow. kind regards Riccardo Il 15/04/2016 00:50, remco van mook ha scritto: Dear colleagues, I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal. Kind regards, Remco (no hats) On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net> > wrote: Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> >. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net <mailto: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 <mailto:info@wirem.net> Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello all, I fully agree with Erik and the rest. I still don't support this proposal. -- George On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
Riccardo,
with all respect I don't see a "remarkable success" in current last /8 policy.
The fact that you don’t see it, doesn’t make it less true.
RIPE IPv4 is out … the reservation of space for IXP’s and other uses ( like future new entrance ) doesn’t change that.
This is not something we have to explain .. this is not something that we will change.
The /22 IPv4 is not for new entrance to assign to customers.. it is to enable them to communicate via a CGNAT from a v6 world to a v4 world.
If you don’t use the obtained v4 space for the intended use, it will never be enough and you will always feel incorrectly treated …
This policy proposal (with all respect to you and Radu and good intentions) needs to stop as it gives people hope on something that isn’t there ...
Regards,
Erik Bais
*Van:* address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *Namens *Riccardo Gori *Verzonden:* vrijdag 15 april 2016 7:49 *Aan:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net; remco.vanmook@gmail.com *Onderwerp:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Good Morning Remco, Good Morning List,
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 that in the meanwhile has been abused in several ways and there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption.
There was only one requirement to obtain one IPv4 /22: request and obtain at least from /32 IPv6 to a maximum of /29 IPv6. Am I wrong or this requirement has been removed?!?! Please explain that to a new entrant... What does it mean? "we are running out. here your crumbs, sorry we have no solution" ?!?
If for you last /8 policy is a success to me IPv6 incentives policies looks absent. We completly failed from this point of view. If you look at this where IPv4 exhaustion took place IPv6 is strongly gowing: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it to grow.
kind regards Riccardo
Il 15/04/2016 00:50, remco van mook ha scritto:
Dear colleagues,
I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now.
The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal.
Kind regards,
Remco
(no hats)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.
Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
--
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
i seek co-authors for a policy to make the last /8 allocation a /24 randy
IPv4 price will be one day high enough that make sense opening more LIR than buy in the market. So I would say this reserve pool will not last as long as some people might thinks. My bet stating next year we will see a much faster depletion rate. So no thank you, we don't need a new policy to make it happen even faster.
On 16 Apr 2016, at 08:15, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
i seek co-authors for a policy to make the last /8 allocation a /24
randy
This is already happening, since IPv4 price on the market is too high. Il 16/04/2016 05:20, h.lu@anytimechinese.com ha scritto:
IPv4 price will be one day high enough that make sense opening more LIR than buy in the market.
-- Saverio Giuntini Servereasy di Giuntini Saverio Amministrazione e system manager
On 15 Apr 2016, at 06:48, Riccardo Gori <rgori@wirem.net> wrote: there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption.
Really? Tim
Hi, On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 07:48, Riccardo Gori wrote:
We are dealing with the same amount of space as September 2012 that in the meanwhile has been abused in several ways and there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption.
There was only one requirement to obtain one IPv4 /22: request and obtain at least from /32 IPv6 to a maximum of /29 IPv6. Am I wrong or this requirement has been removed?!?! Please explain that to a new entrant...
Not only that, but since 2014 IPv4 blocks are to be handed without any justification. Basically RIPE NCC sells IPv4 adresses. I would definitely NOT call that a success.
I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it to grow.
What we are trying to compensante is the "fair" part which is diminishing with time. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Riccardo Gori wrote:
I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it to grow.
It was only a matter of time before someone pulled out the word "fair". "Fair" is a hugely subjective term best left to experts in the field: namely children below the age of 16, all of whom have extraordinary skills in the art of determining what is "fair", and more importantly, what is not. In order to make things better for one section of the RIPE community, another part of the community will need to pay the price. There are several ways of doing this: we could tilt the policy in favour of larger organisations at the cost of smaller organisations, or smaller organisations at the cost of larger organisations, or existing organisations in favour of future market entrants. Currently the ipv4 allocation policy gives precedence to future market entrants and smaller players. This is an unusually altruistic position, given that future market entrants have no say in how current policy is determined. 2015-05 will change this balance further in favour of smaller players at the expense of future market entrants. At a helicopter level and speaking as a smaller LIR, I don't believe that this is a good thing to do and consequently I do not support the policy change. Nick
Hi Nick, everyone is aware that fairness is a relative concept. What we mean in this proposal is that actual policy is encouraging transfer market in some way 'cause there is a transfert market to feed. Is someone asks for space because of need he won't sell outside the resource just to make quick bucks. This proposal aims to address the real need and give a little incentive (the only around are now t-shirts mentioned by Radu) to IPv6 regards Riccardo Il 16/04/2016 13:02, Nick Hilliard ha scritto:
Riccardo Gori wrote:
I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing it to grow. It was only a matter of time before someone pulled out the word "fair".
"Fair" is a hugely subjective term best left to experts in the field: namely children below the age of 16, all of whom have extraordinary skills in the art of determining what is "fair", and more importantly, what is not.
In order to make things better for one section of the RIPE community, another part of the community will need to pay the price. There are several ways of doing this: we could tilt the policy in favour of larger organisations at the cost of smaller organisations, or smaller organisations at the cost of larger organisations, or existing organisations in favour of future market entrants.
Currently the ipv4 allocation policy gives precedence to future market entrants and smaller players. This is an unusually altruistic position, given that future market entrants have no say in how current policy is determined.
2015-05 will change this balance further in favour of smaller players at the expense of future market entrants.
At a helicopter level and speaking as a smaller LIR, I don't believe that this is a good thing to do and consequently I do not support the policy change.
Nick
-- 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) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Riccardo Gori wrote:
This proposal aims to address the real need [...]
Nearly everyone has a need for more IP addresses, not just those with less than /20. The need that organisations have for more IPv4 addresses isn't in dispute. The question is who pays for this need. 2015-05 proposes that we mortgage away the requirements of future market entrants in order to service the community's need right now. There are good reasons why the community should do this and equally - or depending on your point of view, maybe even better - reasons not to do so. My personal opinion is that given the problems this will create for future Internet market entrants, I don't see sufficiently compelling reasons to change the policy. I respect the fact that you see things differently. When you're scraping the bottom of a barrel, disagreements are bound to happen about who gets what dregs and when, and these disagreements will continue as long as there is a single address block remaining in the RIPE NCC IPv4 allocation pool. One of the few disadvantages with the current policy that we can all agree on is that it will prolong these disagreements compared to other policies which favour faster runout. Nick
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.
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.
and there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption.
How about: making your Internet outfit future-poof? Sounds pretty convincing to me. Best, -C.
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On 15.04.2016 00.50, remco van mook wrote:
a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, I would be interested to see how this can be done effectively.
As a matter of transparency I think it is important to understand all the aspects of this. The policy does not exist in a vacuum. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Remco, Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using that.
. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now.
We have the same situation with the “new-entrants” joined 2012 (before we reached to last /8) and the ones joined 2 years after that.
The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about.
This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched. Cheers, Arash Naderpour From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of remco van mook Sent: Friday, 15 April 2016 8:50 AM To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Dear colleagues, I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal. Kind regards, Remco (no hats) On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net> > wrote: Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> >. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Arash,
On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> wrote:
Remco, <>
Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using that.
you can't have it both ways - entitle me to my opinion and at the same time saying I'm not allowed to voice it if you don't like it. I stand by what I said, and I can't help being a bit surprised that it took you almost a month to respond to this part of my statement.
. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now.
We have the same situation with the “new-entrants” joined 2012 (before we reached to last /8) and the ones joined 2 years after that.
The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about.
This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched.
Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more than half, no? Remco
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote:
Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more than half, no?
No, because: - it will not be dedicated to "further allocations" - there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to qualify - with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last /8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further allocations". -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On 11 May 2016, at 14:52 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote:
Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more than half, no?
No, because: - it will not be dedicated to "further allocations" - there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to qualify - with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last /8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further allocations".
OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers: Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1) Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1) New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3) Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2) Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy to get another allocation. Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year. Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool should last until early 2019. At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now empty as well. So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere in early 2019. The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185 pool' was gone by the time it was needed. Now let's look at the current policy. As of today, a total of about 15,130 /22s are available. Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the available pool should last until 2025 (although the uncertainties are quite high if you extrapolate that far out) So on one hand, we have a proposal that will be game over for all in about 3 years, or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for existing and future LIRs well into the next decade. At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so they tell me. The proposed policy has an impact (even the policy proposal itself says so (4)), and one that I strongly object to. (if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so) Sources: 1) https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio... 2) https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016/supporting-do... 3) https://labs.ripe.net/statistics 4) https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 Remco (no hats)
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 21:53, Remco van Mook wrote:
OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers:
Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1) Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1)
I'm OK with that.
New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3) Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2)
Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy to get another allocation. Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year.
At the same time, 4472 LIRs do not have any IPv4 space. Is it possible to know how many of them never requested it, 3.5 years after (or more likely 2 years after all the restrictions have been lifted) ? Do you really think all eligible LIRs will make the request within 6 months ?
Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool should last until early 2019.
I see an average 12 months allocation rate of over 270 allocations/month (and rising). That leaves us (185/8 and recovered) 4 years 8 months (if allocation rate remains steady - but it is increasing). For 185/8 only, that is (less than) 25.75 months, which is more like mid-2018. Continuing outside of 185/8, at the same rate, we get around dec-2020/maybe jan-2021. But that's missing the following: - allocations/month are on the rise, new members are on the rise - not much effect from 2015-01 - no visible effect from suspending "multiple LIRs per member" (lower maximum, but steady high level). - things can change either way, rendering any estimation ..... very estimative....
At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now empty as well.
Not over-night.
So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere in early 2019. The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185 pool' was gone by the time it was needed.
It will not be completely depleted, just reduced (and I can accept "reduced by 50%").
or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for existing and future LIRs well into the next decade.
This is the problem that is supposed to be fixed : the pain. And if at the same time we can also do something effective for boosting IPv6 deployment, the pain level may be even less when the v4 pool will be really empty.
At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so they tell me.
So they told me too, I discovered that it's much more complicated.
(if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so)
Please ! Since it's not easy to find the following information: - if a LIR received or not it's "last /22" (cannot distinguish from one that get it and sold it) - if a LIR has performed an "outbound" transfer or not Thanks.
My apologies to all on the list - this will be my last email about this version of 2015-05.
On 11 May 2016, at 23:21 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 21:53, Remco van Mook wrote:
OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers:
Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1) Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1)
I'm OK with that.
New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3) Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2)
Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy to get another allocation. Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year.
At the same time, 4472 LIRs do not have any IPv4 space. Is it possible to know how many of them never requested it, 3.5 years after (or more likely 2 years after all the restrictions have been lifted) ? Do you really think all eligible LIRs will make the request within 6 months ?
I don't know about the 4,472, but let's say 1,000 of them will, at some point. What has been claimed by a multitude of proponents of this proposal is that apparently a single /22 is woefully inadequate to run your business on. I don't even disagree. All of those 4,000 have never received more than a single /22. Given the option to get more, following the rationale of the proposers, I would be very surprised if they didn't jump at that opportunity. The same goes for every new LIR - and they would even be able to include the second /22 in their business planning, so that's another 4,000. Quite a few LIRs who signed up during the 'run out fairly' period (2011-2012) also don't have a /20 of IPv4 address space, I don't have a number but let's put that at another 500. Finally, according to the proposed policy LIRs can come back every 18 months - so by mid 2018 the first group of 4,000 comes back again. That puts the total number of requests for additional /22s by mid 2018 at 13,500. That's 150% of the space you wanted to make available. There won't be space for newcomers in there. Remco
It would be completely irrational for any LIR that qualifies for additional IPv4 space not to request it. Any LIRs not having done so yet despite qualifying are likely running on auto-pilot in the enterprise world or are prevented from doing so by organizational red tape of some sort. There is undoubtedly a price point at which instead of the e-mails from would-be IPv4 brokers currently circulating that solicit LIRs to sell or lease unadvertised / unused space, LIRs will begin receiving e-mails from the same brokers with the subject line "Did you know you qualify for additional IP space you could sell at a considerable profit? We can help!". I suspect Remco's back-of-a-napkin calculations are actually incredibly conservative, and would like to reiterate my objection to 2015-05 and any future policy aiming to loosen the allocation criteria of the remaining crumbs of IPv4. Seeking to maximize the return on one's LIR fees is a perfectly rational expression of self-interest, but it is hardly a demonstration of responsible custodianship of the future of the Internet. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 12/05/16 00:06, Remco van Mook wrote:
There won't be space for newcomers in there.
Remco
That's not true, I know some LIRs qualified for /22 not requesting it and they are not running on auto-pilot (there are fully aware of the market situation) Arash On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM, David Monosov <davidm@futureinquestion.net> wrote:
It would be completely irrational for any LIR that qualifies for additional IPv4 space not to request it.
Any LIRs not having done so yet despite qualifying are likely running on auto-pilot in the enterprise world or are prevented from doing so by organizational red tape of some sort.
There is undoubtedly a price point at which instead of the e-mails from would-be IPv4 brokers currently circulating that solicit LIRs to sell or lease unadvertised / unused space, LIRs will begin receiving e-mails from the same brokers with the subject line "Did you know you qualify for additional IP space you could sell at a considerable profit? We can help!".
I suspect Remco's back-of-a-napkin calculations are actually incredibly conservative, and would like to reiterate my objection to 2015-05 and any future policy aiming to loosen the allocation criteria of the remaining crumbs of IPv4.
Seeking to maximize the return on one's LIR fees is a perfectly rational expression of self-interest, but it is hardly a demonstration of responsible custodianship of the future of the Internet.
-- Respectfully yours,
David Monosov
On 12/05/16 00:06, Remco van Mook wrote:
There won't be space for newcomers in there.
Remco
Hi Arash - On 13.05.2016 03:01, Arash Naderpour wrote:
That's not true, I know some LIRs qualified for /22 not requesting it and they are not running on auto-pilot (there are fully aware of the market situation)
OK, even then: your point is? Do you empty your bank account the second your employer has transfered your salary? At least I let it sit there until I need it, knowing, assuming or at least hoping it sits there safe and sound. So why would an LIR that has not yet requested its last /22 because it simply doesn't need it at the moment still request it right now when it is ensured that it can also request its last chunk from the cake at any given time in the future? Provided that the underlying conditions do not change, of course. Best, -C.
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM, David Monosov <davidm@futureinquestion.net <mailto:davidm@futureinquestion.net>> wrote:
It would be completely irrational for any LIR that qualifies for additional IPv4 space not to request it.
Any LIRs not having done so yet despite qualifying are likely running on auto-pilot in the enterprise world or are prevented from doing so by organizational red tape of some sort.
[...]
Dear Remco and Radu-Adrian, On 11/05/2016 23:21, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: >> (if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so) > Please ! > Since it's not easy to find the following information: > - if a LIR received or not it's "last /22" (cannot distinguish from one > that get it and sold it) > - if a LIR has performed an "outbound" transfer or not > Thanks. > > > Thank you for your questions. We have some numbers to help the discussion. As of today, 8,831 of our 13,755 members have requested a final /22 IPv4 allocation under the last /8 policy. This means that there are currently 4,924 LIRs that may still request a /22 allocation. This figure includes LIRs that opened recently — if we look only at older members, there are currently 4,791 LIRs that have been open for more than six months and still haven’t requested their final IPv4 allocation. We also note that the proposal introduces limits around transfers. Currently we count 723 LIRs that have transferred IPv4 resources to another entity and so would not qualify for future allocations under the proposal. Regarding how long the available pool will last, we estimate a period of around five years under the current policy. In the next few days, we will publish a RIPE Labs article that will give more insight into what we’re basing this estimate on, such as membership development trends and returned IPv4 address space. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer
Goodmoring Remco,
I read that you don't want to comment more about 2015-05.
I'll respect you and I won't wait for an answer and we can leave
everything for a quick chat in Copenhagen but I have to leave my comment
on your analisys.
In your example you suppose that every LIR under a /20 will request an
additional /22 (every 18 months after a /22 allocation has been
reiceved) and standing on you will litterally "burn" out the space in 3
years.
Let's see what has been done in the past:
In september 2012 there were about 9000 LIRs members and at the end of
2013 the number grows up to 10000 LIRs.
So in your view "last /8" would have distributed about 10000 /22 on
15130 availables from 185/8 at the end of 2013, leaving about 5000 /22
in the pool.
In this vision you couldn't expect to leave to new entrants no more than
5 - 6 thousand /22.
Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why
such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time?
2015-05 requires to act for IPv6
Current policy required in the past to obtain an IPv6 allocation and do
exacly nothing more
Nowadays the allocation policy requires just pay the fee and do nothing.
regards
Riccardo
Il 11/05/2016 21:53, Remco van Mook ha scritto:
>> On 11 May 2016, at 14:52 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote:
>>
>>> Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to
>>> 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than
>>> half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) -
>>> effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in
>>> the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their
>>> last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more
>>> than half, no?
>> No, because:
>> - it will not be dedicated to "further allocations"
>> - there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to
>> qualify
>> - with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last
>> /8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further
>> allocations".
>>
> OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers:
>
> Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1)
> Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1)
>
> New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3)
> Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2)
>
> Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy to get another allocation.
> Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year.
>
> Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool should last until early 2019.
> At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now empty as well.
>
> So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere in early 2019.
> The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185 pool' was gone by the time it was needed.
>
> Now let's look at the current policy. As of today, a total of about 15,130 /22s are available.
> Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the available pool should last until 2025 (although the uncertainties are quite high if you extrapolate that far out)
>
> So on one hand, we have a proposal that will be game over for all in about 3 years, or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for existing and future LIRs well into the next decade.
>
> At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so they tell me.
>
> The proposed policy has an impact (even the policy proposal itself says so (4)), and one that I strongly object to.
>
> (if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so)
>
> Sources:
> 1) https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
> 2) https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016/supporting-documents/ripe-ncc-annual-report-2015
> 3) https://labs.ripe.net/statistics
> 4) https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>
> Remco
> (no hats)
--
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Riccardo,
Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time?
I can answer that one. For 2010-02 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02) the WG started working down from one /8. Then the proposal started RIPE NCC had ±7540 LIRs. Using a /22 per LIR would allow for 16000 LIRs, so more than double the amount at the time. A /16 of address space was set aside for unforeseen circumstances, and the policy states that that reservation would become part of the main pool if not used for such unforeseen circumstances when the pool runs out. I think Daniel's comment at the time sums it up quite nicely:
And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space for them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over IPv4 for long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free allocatable IPv4 address space as long as possible.
2011-03 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-03) updated the policy regarding returned address space. If I remember correctly the arguments on the list at the time were that by putting all the returned address space in the same pool as 185/8 it was made sure that we wouldn't end up in a policy limbo where it was not clear which policy applied to which IPv4 addresses. Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03:
And, frankly, we should take every opportunity remaining to expand the meagre pool of IPv4 addresses we leave to our children.
And that's how we arrived at today's policy. Cheers, Sander
Hi The suggested Rule is a way to support new and small LIR, There is many small LIR they need new IP addresses, The Rule can help them. Thanks On 5/12/2016 3:46 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi Riccardo,
Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time? I can answer that one.
For 2010-02 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02) the WG started working down from one /8. Then the proposal started RIPE NCC had ±7540 LIRs. Using a /22 per LIR would allow for 16000 LIRs, so more than double the amount at the time. A /16 of address space was set aside for unforeseen circumstances, and the policy states that that reservation would become part of the main pool if not used for such unforeseen circumstances when the pool runs out.
I think Daniel's comment at the time sums it up quite nicely:
And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space for them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over IPv4 for long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free allocatable IPv4 address space as long as possible.
2011-03 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-03) updated the policy regarding returned address space. If I remember correctly the arguments on the list at the time were that by putting all the returned address space in the same pool as 185/8 it was made sure that we wouldn't end up in a policy limbo where it was not clear which policy applied to which IPv4 addresses.
Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03:
And, frankly, we should take every opportunity remaining to expand the meagre pool of IPv4 addresses we leave to our children.
And that's how we arrived at today's policy.
Cheers, Sander
it's not just our grandchildren. if the last /8 policy had not been put in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get IPv4 space. randy
Hi,
Op 12 mei 2016, om 15:48 heeft Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> het volgende geschreven:
it's not just our grandchildren. if the last /8 policy had not been put in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get IPv4 space.
True. Without the current policy that started with 185/8 the NCC would have run out somewhere between December 2012 and January 2013 (based on an allocation rate of ±3.5 /8s per year, which was the rate at the time). Everybody who got any address space from the NCC after September 2012 should be happy that their predecessors took their needs into account ;) Cheers! Sander
Hi Randy, that's why we (defined somewhere pigs) are not rewriting base concept of "last /8" We are proposing to help LIRs to gain some sustainability of their new businesses. This is 'cause some LIRs in the past eated almost all the space and created stockpiles of unused space and some years later created the well known transfert market where to lease/buy space for money profit. At the same time we are trying to remind to anyone there's a IPv6 to deploy that is supposed to be the real solution (and disappeared from allocation policies). again many thanks to all LIRs that didn't request their last /22 regards Riccardo Il 12/05/2016 15:48, Randy Bush ha scritto:
it's not just our grandchildren. if the last /8 policy had not been put in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get IPv4 space.
randy
-- 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) --------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2016 May 12 (Thu) at 18:00:07 +0200 (+0200), Riccardo Gori wrote: :We are proposing to help LIRs to gain some sustainability of their new :businesses. First you say this. :again many thanks to all LIRs that didn't request their last /22 And then you say this. You seem to be contradicting yourself in the same email. -- We don't know who discovered water, but we're certain it wasn't a fish.
Hi Peter, Il 12/05/2016 18:15, Peter Hessler ha scritto:
On 2016 May 12 (Thu) at 18:00:07 +0200 (+0200), Riccardo Gori wrote: :We are proposing to help LIRs to gain some sustainability of their new :businesses.
First you say this.
:again many thanks to all LIRs that didn't request their last /22
And then you say this.
You seem to be contradicting yourself in the same email. Sorry, you are right. I am referring to LIRs born before 14/09/2012 that didn't request their /22
regards Riccardo -- 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) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Am 12.05.2016 um 15:48 schrieb Randy Bush:
it's not just our grandchildren. if the last /8 policy had not been put in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get IPv4 space.
randy
Well said. Look at the other RIRs who cannot offer any IPv4 space to new members. The market is more or less fixed. New ISPs cannot easily develop new business models and innovate. But we in RIPE region can, because of the strict policy. Let`s keep it. We have talked about IPv6 so many times, there is no way to speed up IPv6 deployment by writing a policy. IPv6 will come, see the growth rates in several coutries. Apple is demanding it for the software, this will help. There are many companies moving to IPv6. And many enterprises become LIR to get IPv6 space. They want to become independant from their providers, never want to renumber again and see, that the Internet is important for their business and they take back control. Getting IPv4 space is sometimes just an addon (a very nice one, I admit). I oppose 2015-05 and want to stick with the current policy of not burning down the RIPE NCC IPv4 pool for short term profit. Welcome new players on the market with an IPv4 address block as long as possible. Wilhelm
Hi everyone, I agree with Wilhelms arguments and I want to add my personal thoughts about 2015-05. I dont think that it is a good thing, if depletation of the RIPE NCCs IPv4 address pool will speed up and in my opinion it is the wrong signal to support the NCCs members with the historical internet addressing standard. There is a new successor standard, that will bring complete new possibilities for an internet infrastructure with an open standard for equal footing chances to step into the business. There is no need for more IPv4 addresses unless for migration use. In addition I think, that the comparision with the runout policies from other RIRs is not a valid argument. RIPEs current last /8 policy runs great and gives equal chances for new members in a mid term run. Therefore, I oppose the policy proposal 2015-05. Regards, Carsten
Am 12.05.2016 um 18:46 schrieb Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm@boeddinghaus.de>:
Am 12.05.2016 um 15:48 schrieb Randy Bush:
it's not just our grandchildren. if the last /8 policy had not been put in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get IPv4 space.
randy
Well said.
Look at the other RIRs who cannot offer any IPv4 space to new members. The market is more or less fixed. New ISPs cannot easily develop new business models and innovate. But we in RIPE region can, because of the strict policy. Let`s keep it.
We have talked about IPv6 so many times, there is no way to speed up IPv6 deployment by writing a policy. IPv6 will come, see the growth rates in several coutries. Apple is demanding it for the software, this will help. There are many companies moving to IPv6. And many enterprises become LIR to get IPv6 space. They want to become independant from their providers, never want to renumber again and see, that the Internet is important for their business and they take back control. Getting IPv4 space is sometimes just an addon (a very nice one, I admit).
I oppose 2015-05 and want to stick with the current policy of not burning down the RIPE NCC IPv4 pool for short term profit. Welcome new players on the market with an IPv4 address block as long as possible.
Wilhelm
Hi Riccardo,
Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time? I can answer that one.
For 2010-02 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02) the WG started working down from one /8. Then the proposal started RIPE NCC had ±7540 LIRs. Using a /22 per LIR would allow for 16000 LIRs, so more than double the amount at the time. A /16 of address space was set aside for unforeseen circumstances, and the policy states that that reservation would become part of the main pool if not used for such unforeseen circumstances when the pool runs out. My point here is that as when "last /8" was tought was to deploy IPv6 and leave space to new entrants. So objecting that 2015-05 will burn the free pool just because every LIR under /20 can request a /22 it's not point if wasn't the same in the
Hi Sander, thank you for your answer Il 12/05/2016 14:16, Sander Steffann ha scritto: past. We should attain at the historical datas to forecast or read an impact analisys about it. From approval of 2010-02 and 14 September 2012, when the policy was triggered, the number of LIRs grew from about 7540 to about 9000-10000. It would be able to forecast a grow of about 1500-2000 per year. Leaving the oportunity to any old LIRs (that reiceved allocation from 18 Jan 2011 up to 14/09/2012 under the old policy) to obtain a /22 after 14 September 2012 would made everyone able to forecast not more 7000-9000 /22 to new LIRs (LIRs after 09/2012) Let me say another time there are many stranges big allocations made just two weeks before the new policy took place.
I think Daniel's comment at the time sums it up quite nicely:
And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space for them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over IPv4 for long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free allocatable IPv4 address space as long as possible.
2011-03 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-03) updated the policy regarding returned address space. If I remember correctly the arguments on the list at the time were that by putting all the returned address space in the same pool as 185/8 it was made sure that we wouldn't end up in a policy limbo where it was not clear which policy applied to which IPv4 addresses. Please note that the current text is: [...] This section only applies to address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC and that will not be returned to the IANA but re-issued by the RIPE NCC itself. [...]
I am not able to fully understand this because I don't know what happens to returned address space and when not is handable by RIPE itself and should be returned to IANA cleaned and issued back to RIR.
Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03:
And, frankly, we should take every opportunity remaining to expand the meagre pool of IPv4 addresses we leave to our children.
And that's how we arrived at today's policy.
Cheers, Sander
Thank you to all old LIRs that didn't request their last /22 so I had the oportunity to request for it early Jan/2015. Anyway I strongly think the policy should go voer IPv4 and do something for IPv6! regards Riccardo -- 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) --------------------------------------------------------------------
* Riccardo Gori
Thank you to all old LIRs that didn't request their last /22 so I had the oportunity to request for it early Jan/2015.
Marco estimated that the pool would last for around five years under the current policy[1]. For the sake of the argument, let's assume he's spot on, to the exact day. [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-May/011247.ht... That means that on the 11th of May 2021, a new entrant will receive the very last /22. That last entrant could then be - like you - thanking the "old LIRs" - yours included - for showing restraint in not passing 2015-05, giving him the opportunity to request and receive his /22. If on the other hand 2015-05 passes, that /22 would obviously no longer be available for allocation on the 11th of May 2021. An (at that point in time) "old LIR" - maybe yours - would instead have received it as an additional allocation under the 2015-05 policy. The new entrant certaintly wouldn't be thanking anyone for their selflessness. Tore
* Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> [2016-04-14 14:45]:
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
Hello, oppose this proposal. As others have already stated, the goal of the reserved pool is to enable new entrants into the IPv4 market while we're cleaning up the mess we made by not migrating to IPv6 sooner. Giving additional allocations to members will not further that goal. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
Anno domini 2016 Sebastian Wiesinger scripsit:
* Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> [2016-04-14 14:45]:
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
oppose this proposal. As others have already stated, the goal of the reserved pool is to enable new entrants into the IPv4 market while we're cleaning up the mess we made by not migrating to IPv6 sooner. Giving additional allocations to members will not further that goal.
+1 Best Max -- Alles sollte so einfach wie möglich gemacht sein. Aber nicht einfacher. (Einstein)
Hello, I've read the proposal and arguments for and against and indeed all the various different opinions presented. Although I can see some merit to support the proposal from a needs based perspective and use of reclaimed addresses. Personally I cannot however ignore the fact that new LIR's into the future will need IPv4 to implement IPv6 based solutions of whatever flavour, and therefore I cannot support this policy change as I believe the current policy is fit for purpose. To confirm I do not support this policy proposal. Kind Regards, Guy On 14/04/2016 13:41, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.
Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
participants (51)
-
Adrian Pitulac -
Aled Morris -
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Arash Naderpour -
Carsten Brückner -
Carsten Schiefner -
daniela＠viaturchetta.it -
David Monosov -
Denis Fondras -
Dickinson, Ian -
Dominik Nowacki -
Erik Bais -
George Giannousopoulos -
Gert Doering -
Guy Chilton -
h.lu＠anytimechinese.com -
Hannigan, Martin -
Hans Petter Holen -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Jim Reid -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Lu Heng
-
Marco Schmidt -
Maximilian Wilhelm -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Momchil Petrov -
Mozafary Mohammad -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
Peter Hessler -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -
Randy Bush -
registry＠tdc.se -
Remco van Mook -
remco van mook
-
Reza Behroozi -
Riccardo Gori -
ripe＠scholarwebservices.com -
Rob Evans -
Roger Jørgensen -
Sander Steffann -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Servereasy -
Sleigh, Robert -
Stepan Kucherenko -
Storch Matei -
Tim Chown -
Tom Hill -
Tom Smyth -
Tore Anderson -
Wilhelm Boeddinghaus