Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..
Hi, Ive heard the phrase the final /8 in several discussions but I want to ask people what their idea is about the pool that is currently still left If you think that the pool which we have left is only the final /8 that we are working into currently (185.x.y.z) I think that the assumption is incorrect. There is still space left at IANA and once the first RIR reaches below their /9 mark of their final /8 from my understanding it is , that also that space is going to be allocated to the RIRs . Also there will be reclaimed space from 2007-01 and closing LIRs (forced or by people their own decision) and also that space all goes back into the same pool. So you might need quite a couple of new entities to finish the pool as it is. . . Ive seen people say, why not open 20 new entities, setup a new LIR in each .. and you have 20 /22s Yes it is possible.. However Ive noticed, there is little support to close this gap.. or the gap to be able to merge those 20 LIRs .. or the option to be able to merge any LIRs that already have their final /8 /22 provided. Yes there will be people who play the system.. and with the bottom in sight, do we want to close all possible loopholes ? If we decide, no we dont want to close the loopholes, stop mentioning it in the discussion as a possible threat, because we already decided it is what it is and we are not going to close the gap. There will be some people that will just open a second LIR or perhaps even 8, there will be people who go to the IPv4 market and seek their v4 fix there The more people will request space from the current pool, with their own benefit in mind without any regard for the actual intention of the policy (provide an option for new companies into the market) it is too bad. If we are happy with the policy in place or dont see/feel the need to change, it is to me a clear consensus on how it is potentially abused. If there is no consensus and people do feel the requirement to adjust it, lets see what goes faster Getting a new policy in place or the depletion of the pool as it is currently Just my 2 cent. Erik
* Erik Bais
If you think that the pool which we have left is only the final /8 that we are working into currently (185.x.y.z) I think that the assumption is incorrect.
It is incorrect indeed. This is one of the rather confusing things about our current policy that 2013-03 aims to improve. Under 2013-03, the phase "the last /8" is completely purged from the policy language.
There is still space left at IANA and once the first RIR reaches below their /9 mark of their final /8 … from my understanding it is , that also that space is going to be allocated to the RIR’s .
Also there will be reclaimed space from 2007-01 and closing LIR’s (forced or by people their own decision) and also that space all goes back into the same pool.
Both these statements are correct.
So you might need quite a couple of new entities to finish the pool as it is. . .
Correct. I gave some stats about this here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-July/008040.ht... (near the bottom of the message).
I’ve seen people say, why not open 20 new entities, setup a new LIR in each .. and you have 20 /22’s … Yes it is possible..
However I’ve noticed, there is little support to close this gap.. or the gap to be able to merge those 20 LIR’s .. or the option to be able to merge any LIR’s that already have their final /8 /22 provided.
Yes there will be people who play the system.. and with the bottom in sight, do we want to close all possible loopholes ?
If we decide, no we don’t want to close the loopholes, stop mentioning it in the discussion as a possible threat, because we already decided it is what it is and we are not going to close the gap.
Couldn't agree more. If there is a problem in today's policy that continues to be a problem with 2013-03 - don't hold it against 2013-03 (but do feel free to submit a new proposal that fixes the problem). Tore
On Thursday, July 25, 2013, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Erik Bais
If you think that the pool which we have left is only the final /8 that we are working into currently (185.x.y.z) I think that the assumption is incorrect.
It is incorrect indeed. This is one of the rather confusing things about our current policy that 2013-03 aims to improve. Under 2013-03, the phase "the last /8" is completely purged from the policy language.
Which I belive is a good thing.
There is still space left at IANA
Yes roughly a /8 in bits an pieces according to IANA management at the last ICANN meeting.
and once the first RIR reaches below
their /9 mark of their final /8 … from my understanding it is , that also that space is going to be allocated to the RIR’s .
Also there will be reclaimed space from 2007-01 and closing LIR’s (forced or by people their own decision) and also that space all goes back into the same pool.
Both these statements are correct.
Is it really? If we remove the needs based criteria will it then be returned to the NCC or put up for sale? Hans Petter -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Hi, Hans Petter Holen wrote: [ ]
There is still space left at IANA
Yes roughly a /8 in bits an pieces according to IANA management at the last ICANN meeting.
You can see the full details of the recovered pool in the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recove red-address-space.xml which is also available as a CSV file, for the convenience of anyone who wants to import it into some spreadsheet software. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda
* Hans Petter Holen
and once the first RIR reaches below > their /9 mark of their final /8 … from my understanding it is , that > also that space is going to be allocated to the RIR’s . > > Also there will be reclaimed space from 2007-01 and closing LIR’s > (forced or by people their own decision) and also that space all goes > back into the same pool.
Both these statements are correct.
Is it really?
Demonstrably so. You confirmed yourself that there is currently reclaimed address space in the IANA pool (19,104,768 addresses to be exact), and according to the delegated file there are currently 933,832 returned/reclaimed addresses in the NCC's possession.
If we remove the needs based criteria will it then be returned to the NCC or put up for sale?
Needs based criteria is irrelevant here, as selling LIRs are not subjected to any form of need evaluation. If an LIR is closing down in a controlled manner (i.e., not forcibly by the NCC), it may choose to put its allocations up for sale or to return them to the NCC. (PI assignments, OTOH, have nowhere to go except back to the NCC.) Tore
participants (4)
-
Erik Bais -
Hans Petter Holen -
Leo Vegoda -
Tore Anderson