Hello, I think that if we are changing the policy in regards to allocations from the Last /8 we should make sure this is not abused. There are many LIRs setup solely for the purpose of getting an allocation from the last /8 to rent this space out. As this space is offered for a very low fee it is often abused and hence artificially increasing the IPv4 depletion. This should not be the case. I think the policy should allow for the subsequent allocations from the last /8, but only if the space is not only not transferred out of the LIR account in the period of 18 months AND the LIR was not renting the space from the last /8 to another entities within the last 18 months period (solely, not as part of another service). What do you think ? Kind Regards, Dominik Clouvider Limited
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Dominik Nowacki <dominik@clouvider.co.uk> wrote:
I think the policy should allow for the subsequent allocations from the last /8, but only if the space is not only not transferred out of the LIR account in the period of 18 months AND the LIR was not renting the space from the last /8 to another entities within the last 18 months period (solely, not as part of another service).
What do you think ?
How do you propose that RIPE NCC go about acquiring that information and enforcing that regulation? Is there a bit of confusion regarding what a LIR is? https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/faq/independent... -- Jan
Dear colleagues, I am not supporting this policy. I write this email since I wrote on 20/10 that I like the policy text but I want that my thought about this policy is clear. It does not contain any /something limit (as example /20) already administered by the requesting LIR. I would add some text as follows: [...] 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its registry [...] For the ones asking theirself if I think there is any difference between LIR and LIR someone already asked me this. Yes I think there is. I tought that the /8 policy was designed for new entrants and I can't see any new entrant owning a /21 or /20 or /19 or /16 To me looks slightly differente one old LIR to a new entrant LIR. So that's why different policies, different evaluation criterias and available recources. regards Riccardo -- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net WIREM Fiber Revolution - Net-IT s.r.l. Via Emilia Ponente, 1667 47522 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 e-mail: info@wirem.net -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Emilia Ponente, 1667 - 47522 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 16:04, Riccardo Gori wrote:
It does not contain any /something limit (as example /20) already administered by the requesting LIR. I would add some text as follows: [...] 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its registry [...]
IF that is to be done, I'd say that the acceptable limit (from several points of view) may be more /21 rather than /22, i.e. only real new entrants (after 09/2012). That could also be spelled this way. /20 was the initial idea too, but left aside for the first version. Any other optinion on this (other than "global no" or "no, no, no") ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Colleagues, I'd say /21 with review of the policy scheduled within two years. Regards, Dominik -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN Sent: 02 November 2015 16:23 To: Riccardo Gori <rgori@wirem.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 16:04, Riccardo Gori wrote:
It does not contain any /something limit (as example /20) already administered by the requesting LIR. I would add some text as follows: [...] 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its registry [...]
IF that is to be done, I'd say that the acceptable limit (from several points of view) may be more /21 rather than /22, i.e. only real new entrants (after 09/2012). That could also be spelled this way. /20 was the initial idea too, but left aside for the first version. Any other optinion on this (other than "global no" or "no, no, no") ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 17:23, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
points of view) may be more /21 rather than /22, i.e. only real new
That should have been "/21 rather than /20", concerning the limit of already-held space. Sorry for the error.
participants (4)
-
Dominik Nowacki -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -
Riccardo Gori