Re: RIPE-826: time to revisit maybe
Hello, On 10/30/26 8:49 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 04:13:51PM +0200, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
All I'm trying to say that, ISPs (like IXPs, which are BTW treated differently) are different from other RIPE members and providing they can show said growth and plans, they should be able to get additional IPv4 allocations. In essence, not all LIRs are equally displeased with this policy. Some are more displeased than others. So you are saying that if you get more IPs, implying that even *less* will be left for others, this would be a positive change?
I'm not implying anything. I'm clearly stating that not all LIRs have the same needs and unlike IPv6 where we can use the flat "one size for all" model, in the remaining IPv4, we need to implement a fair allocation policy and RIPE-826 is not (currently) that.
Assuming "yes", how would the RIPE NCC know what LIRs would be "ISPs", whatever that is? DSL providers, cloud providers, hosting service providers, friendly neighbourhood wifi services, ...?
It's relatively easy for an LIR to justify extra needs because of being a mobile service operator or fixed service operator (or both), if you do not like the "ISP" term, but that's just semantics, details that need to be ironed out, nothing more. Yannis
Gert Doering
Hi all, I oppose handing out more IPv4 unless we get like another /10 at least returned/reclaimed considering we have a waiting list larger than 3 /16 at this point. It will be hard to differentiate between a legitimate business ISP and a shell for very profitable VPN providers, for example. Thanks Max On 31.10.26 09:46, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
Hello,
On 10/30/26 8:49 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 04:13:51PM +0200, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
All I'm trying to say that, ISPs (like IXPs, which are BTW treated differently) are different from other RIPE members and providing they can show said growth and plans, they should be able to get additional IPv4 allocations. In essence, not all LIRs are equally displeased with this policy. Some are more displeased than others. So you are saying that if you get more IPs, implying that even *less* will be left for others, this would be a positive change?
I'm not implying anything. I'm clearly stating that not all LIRs have the same needs and unlike IPv6 where we can use the flat "one size for all" model, in the remaining IPv4, we need to implement a fair allocation policy and RIPE-826 is not (currently) that.
Assuming "yes", how would the RIPE NCC know what LIRs would be "ISPs", whatever that is? DSL providers, cloud providers, hosting service providers, friendly neighbourhood wifi services, ...?
It's relatively easy for an LIR to justify extra needs because of being a mobile service operator or fixed service operator (or both), if you do not like the "ISP" term, but that's just semantics, details that need to be ironed out, nothing more.
Yannis
Gert Doering
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi On 10/31/26 10:50 AM, ripe@emigm.ax wrote:
Hi all,
I oppose handing out more IPv4 unless we get like another /10 at least returned/reclaimed considering we have a waiting list larger than 3 /16 at this point.
agreed, but there is no harm in discussing policy changes
It will be hard to differentiate between a legitimate business ISP and a shell for very profitable VPN providers, for example.
The legitimacy in question could be evaluated by the NCC 9maybe via an audit) Regards, Yannis
Thanks
Max
On 31.10.26 09:46, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
Hello,
On 10/30/26 8:49 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 04:13:51PM +0200, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
All I'm trying to say that, ISPs (like IXPs, which are BTW treated differently) are different from other RIPE members and providing they can show said growth and plans, they should be able to get additional IPv4 allocations. In essence, not all LIRs are equally displeased with this policy. Some are more displeased than others. So you are saying that if you get more IPs, implying that even *less* will be left for others, this would be a positive change?
I'm not implying anything. I'm clearly stating that not all LIRs have the same needs and unlike IPv6 where we can use the flat "one size for all" model, in the remaining IPv4, we need to implement a fair allocation policy and RIPE-826 is not (currently) that.
Assuming "yes", how would the RIPE NCC know what LIRs would be "ISPs", whatever that is? DSL providers, cloud providers, hosting service providers, friendly neighbourhood wifi services, ...?
It's relatively easy for an LIR to justify extra needs because of being a mobile service operator or fixed service operator (or both), if you do not like the "ISP" term, but that's just semantics, details that need to be ironed out, nothing more.
Yannis
Gert Doering
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
participants (2)
-
ripe＠emigm.ax -
Yannis Nikolopoulos