Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before. I support this measure. For us it is a big problem not to request more / 22, we are an ISP, and it does not seem fair to have to buy to get / 22 when others have to spare.
On 16 Nov 2015, at 09:02, David - ProfesionalHosting <david@profesionalhosting.es> wrote:
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before.
I support this measure. For us it is a big problem not to request more / 22, we are an ISP, and it does not seem fair to have to buy to get / 22 when others have to spare.
I strongly oppose this measure. The NCC’s remaining v4 address space must be carefully conserved to ensure new LIRs in 5, 10, 20 year’s time can get a minimum allocation of IPv4. They will need some v4 space sp can reach IPv4-only equipment on what should be a mostly IPv6 Internet. If we burn through those remaining IPv4 addresses now, that will not be possible. This would be wrong. Very wrong. Any address policy for the last /8 which says “LIRs can get even more than their one off final /22 of IPv4” undermines that principle. Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair and unwise.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 16/11/15 10:37, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly oppose this measure.
The NCC’s remaining v4 address space must be carefully conserved to ensure new LIRs in 5, 10, 20 year’s time can get a minimum allocation of IPv4. They will need some v4 space sp can reach IPv4-only equipment on what should be a mostly IPv6 Internet. If we burn through those remaining IPv4 addresses now, that will not be possible. This would be wrong. Very wrong.
Any address policy for the last /8 which says “LIRs can get even more than their one off final /22 of IPv4” undermines that principle.
Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair and unwise.
+1 to all of the above. I am also against this proposal. - -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWSbO9AAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ68MQH/RX5tEccjob1Qata1keZuxGI PM1wTRxauEWH45t1a5/HLgULAm+bl9tBJPwnilky1Dxo8MmEY9JbsTqrpeZ0HLf4 bzijlwt1FYBfY/K9nS8WoaNmsMGS+zHuUT6e5ea9+83y3FuFkPqbP/keQsw2tsN9 uGlAKWti4dysfo7fW2+mJUe0z1uPfA8EPe0Ff1vA2+/38UxHz2JPNOuN9FE1ySPG Ax8sa7S6u4FkBUNUlxyuM6SSH4IBJMkHg0mHfQWqgrJiTlC+lnNfBStPTRCKb36D 1vSc0Q1HG/JtlsfEAq3oYXvxghSSkobPNmsqNlCe2Be9cgB/4exe6a7GwkyqvcA= =15uR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear Colleague, It is clear that the future is in the ipv6 but the current reality is that large ISPs do not use IPv6 customer connections. When exhausted my / 22 ipv4 first thing I did is to implement IPv6 , if only we set up a server with IPv6, end users connecting to only support IPv4 can not access the pages on that server. While 100% implemented IPv6 on all ISPs will be many many years, as we are both ipv4 blocked and need more, we can not wait for this to happen. We can only buy at speculative prices. In my humble opinion Limit /22 IPv4 will not solve the problem of using the ipv6. This measure limit /22 pressed only to new members who entered with this limitation, although all new members implement IPv6 does not solve the problem that depends on large ISP. El 16/11/15 a las 11:37, Jim Reid escribió:
On 16 Nov 2015, at 09:02, David - ProfesionalHosting <david@profesionalhosting.es> wrote:
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before.
I support this measure. For us it is a big problem not to request more / 22, we are an ISP, and it does not seem fair to have to buy to get / 22 when others have to spare. I strongly oppose this measure.
The NCC’s remaining v4 address space must be carefully conserved to ensure new LIRs in 5, 10, 20 year’s time can get a minimum allocation of IPv4. They will need some v4 space sp can reach IPv4-only equipment on what should be a mostly IPv6 Internet. If we burn through those remaining IPv4 addresses now, that will not be possible. This would be wrong. Very wrong.
Any address policy for the last /8 which says “LIRs can get even more than their one off final /22 of IPv4” undermines that principle.
Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair and unwise.
On 16 Nov 2015, at 11:42, David - ProfesionalHosting <david@profesionalhosting.es> wrote:
While 100% implemented IPv6 on all ISPs will be many many years, as we are both ipv4 blocked and need more, we can not wait for this to happen. We can only buy at speculative prices.
Tough. If you choose that approach to kludging around your IPv4 problems, the consequences of that decision are yours alone. There are other ways of making “better” use of your remaining IPv4 address space. Though they are also ugly. Get over it. Sorry. Your argument seems to be “I want to plunder the remaining IPv4 at the NCC because I don’t want to buy addreses on the secondary market”. Well, that’s simply not a good enough reason to change the current policy. That approach may well be good for you and your business but it’s not good for the community as a whole. Tragedy of the commons and all that…
I have not suggested this proposal(although support), not only for me, I'm sure there are many new members in this situation. El 16/11/15 a las 14:12, Jim Reid escribió:
On 16 Nov 2015, at 11:42, David - ProfesionalHosting <david@profesionalhosting.es> wrote:
While 100% implemented IPv6 on all ISPs will be many many years, as we are both ipv4 blocked and need more, we can not wait for this to happen. We can only buy at speculative prices. Tough.
If you choose that approach to kludging around your IPv4 problems, the consequences of that decision are yours alone. There are other ways of making “better” use of your remaining IPv4 address space. Though they are also ugly. Get over it. Sorry.
Your argument seems to be “I want to plunder the remaining IPv4 at the NCC because I don’t want to buy addreses on the secondary market”. Well, that’s simply not a good enough reason to change the current policy. That approach may well be good for you and your business but it’s not good for the community as a whole. Tragedy of the commons and all that…
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Tough.
If you choose that approach to kludging around your IPv4 problems, the consequences of that decision are yours alone. There are other ways of making “better” use of your remaining IPv4 address space. Though they are also ugly. Get over it. Sorry.
Yup.
Your argument seems to be “I want to plunder the remaining IPv4 at the NCC because I don’t want to buy addreses on the secondary market”. Well, that’s simply not a good enough reason to change the current policy. That approach may well be good for you and your business but it’s not good for the community as a whole. Tragedy of the commons and all that…
I think the lukewarm reception to my thought experiment also shows that the agenda isn't about solving any real problems with the restrictions under the last /8 policy, but actually _is_ about plundering the remaining IPv4 space. It's therefore been a bit amusing and sad to see how this proposal is so eagerly supported by some of the list participants. Well, I cannot say that I've been swayed away from opposing the proposal. -- Jan
On 16 Nov 2015, at 09:02, David - ProfesionalHosting <david@profesionalhosting.es> wrote:
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before.
I support this measure. For us it is a big problem not to request more / 22, we are an ISP, and it does not seem fair to have to buy to get / 22 when others have to spare.
I strongly oppose this measure.
The NCC’s remaining v4 address space must be carefully conserved to ensure new LIRs in 5, 10, 20 year’s time can get a minimum allocation of IPv4. They will need some v4 space sp can reach IPv4-only equipment on what should be a mostly IPv6 Internet. If we burn through those remaining IPv4 addresses now, that will not be possible. This would be wrong. Very wrong.
Any address policy for the last /8 which says “LIRs can get even more than their one off final /22 of IPv4” undermines that principle.
Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair and unwise.
Well said, Jim. FWIW, I'm agreeing fully with what you say here. The current "last /8" policy is working the way it should. Regards, - Håvard
Guten Tag,
On 16 Nov 2015, at 09:02, David - ProfesionalHosting <david@profesionalhosting.es> wrote:
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before.
I support this measure. For us it is a big problem not to request more / 22, we are an ISP, and it does not seem fair to have to buy to get / 22 when others have to spare. I strongly oppose this measure.
Well said, Jim. FWIW, I'm agreeing fully with what you say here. The current "last /8" policy is working the way it should. As much as I sympathize with the LIRs that are suffering under the restrictions of the last/8 policy (one of our customers just opened an LIR in order to get their own /22 ... which is NOT enough to supply all of their business customers, let alone the home users, with unique IPv4 addresses), I do also have to oppose the proposition. What I could maybe live with would be if the additional addresses would be available from a pool of returned IPv4 addresses only, and only to those with available space smaller than /X (like, e.g. /20 or /19)
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Garry Glendown -- Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstraße 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49 661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown@nethinks.com Geschäftsführer: Uwe Bergmann Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32
Hi Garry,
What I could maybe live with would be if the additional addresses would be available from a pool of returned IPv4 addresses only, and only to those with available space smaller than /X (like, e.g. /20 or /19)
What I am a bit worried about with a policy like that is the 'flapping' effect. At some point the pool of returned addresses runs out, so the NCC has to refuse requests. Then some more addresses are returned and the pool fill up a bit again, but the existing queue of requests will drain it again, etc. This might be implemented with a waiting list in a first-come-first-serve manner, but I expect that the time between sending in a request and getting to the top of the list might get to 'multiple years' quite quickly. So it would add a lot of complexity and still not help the newcomers. Stuff like this is why this working group decided a few years ago to put all the returned space into the main pool instead of making a new pool with a separate policy. If this working group wants to change that now we need to carefully consider the consequences and effects. Cheers, Sander
Guten Tag,
Hi Garry,
What I could maybe live with would be if the additional addresses would be available from a pool of returned IPv4 addresses only, and only to those with available space smaller than /X (like, e.g. /20 or /19) What I am a bit worried about with a policy like that is the 'flapping' effect. At some point the pool of returned addresses runs out, so the NCC has to refuse requests. Then some more addresses are returned and the pool fill up a bit again, but the existing queue of requests will drain it again, etc.
This might be implemented with a waiting list in a first-come-first-serve manner, but I expect that the time between sending in a request and getting to the top of the list might get to 'multiple years' quite quickly. So it would add a lot of complexity and still not help the newcomers.
Stuff like this is why this working group decided a few years ago to put all the returned space into the main pool instead of making a new pool with a separate policy. If this working group wants to change that now we need to carefully consider the consequences and effects. Yes it would create a waiting list - which is fine. For newcomers, we still have the last/8 pool to "instantly" provide a /22, with sufficient IPs (hopefully) to last until legacy v4 is finally disabled (I hope to see that day ;) ). And still it allows for at least some growth for new LIRs. As for the policy on how to distribute returned v4 blocks, I could imagine something that includes factors like current allocation (i.e. someone who only has a /22 gets into the waiting list before someone with a larger allocation), number of IPs requested, time since last allocation, whether the LIR has transfered IPs to another LIR, etc.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Garry Glendown
Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair and unwise.
Well said, Jim. FWIW, I'm agreeing fully with what you say here. The current "last /8" policy is working the way it should.
the only thing i would add, with extreme sadness and some disgust, it that they could do as many have, go nat/cgn. randy
On Nov 16, 2015, at 11:02, David - ProfesionalHosting <david@profesionalhosting.es> wrote:
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before.
I support this measure. For us it is a big problem not to request more / 22, we are an ISP, and it does not seem fair to have to buy to get / 22 when others have to spare.
I agree with this proposal, it will give a fresh air to some of us.
participants (9)
-
Bogdan-Stefan Rotariu -
David - ProfesionalHosting -
Garry Glendown -
Havard Eidnes -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Jim Reid -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann -
Tom Hill