Hi Sebastian, I understand your point but please consider that setting up a new LIR does not mean you are immediately eligible to receive additional /22. - allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. - 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 - Allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. And you cannot transfer out your /22 for 2years, So affection to the depletion rate looks less than setting up multi LIR to receive immediately an /22 from 185/8 or encouraging small businesses in need of small blocks to become LIR. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Sebastian Benoit [mailto:benoit-lists@fb12.de] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 5:07 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement Hi, Arash Naderpour(arash_mpc@parsun.com) on 2016.05.09 23:25:56 +1000:
Hi,
This policy may actually reduce the depletion rate for last /8, but without it the last /8 can be used more day by day. In the real world, even when a customer needs for example an /24, they need to become an LIR (and get the /22 from the last /8) as their old LIR cannot provide them with additional blocks. That also speed up the depletion of last / 8. have you considered these when you made your objection?
This policy is not increasing the demand for IPv4, It creates a possibility for small LIRs to receive additional blocks (not from last /8) based on some conditions, so no change in depletion rate from my point of view.
On the other hand, there is also the possibility that 2015-05 will increase the depletion rate, not only because more address space will be handed out, but because it will make it more attractive (from a financial point of view) to set up a new LIR when you get more than a /22 out of it. That is, it might make the secondary market less attractive.
Yes they can, but if they are really interested to make their LIR job. If the only motivation of new-comers is to get some IPv4 as their internet service provider is not able to provide them with any, there would no do LIR job. (new RIPE NCC members are not necessarily from IT industry and are forced to become LIR)
Why wouldn't a LIR get some space on the secondary market to provide to its customers ?
And you consider it fair when you cannot get more than /22 when some players have /19 or more?
For some definition of "fair". I came to the game later when the pool was empty, I know it and I understand it. So, I consider "fair" I was able to get a small part of IPv4 that helped me kickstart the business.
At the moment many new LIRs are just joining the RIPE NCC to get small blocks, that is happening.
Some are taking advantages of this situation (open multiple LIR) to get IPv4 space. I don't see how 2015-05 would stop that even if you allow new LIR to get more than a /22. All I can see it more faster depletion (honest LIR getting more + dishonest LIR getting more) I hear your arguments but I don't think 2015-05 is the right answer for the community. Denis
On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 08:15, Denis Fondras wrote:
Why wouldn't a LIR get some space on the secondary market to provide to its customers ?
Because: - for a small LIR it's still too expensive (usual quote is 11-13 USD/IP for /22 to /24) - there is some risk of "bad quality IPs" (blacklists, bad reputation, bad and slow-to-update geoloc data) - missing business procedures/confidence (issue of using escrow account does not help)
Some are taking advantages of this situation (open multiple LIR) to get IPv4 space. I don't see how 2015-05 would stop that even if you allow new LIR to get more than a /22. All I can see it more faster depletion (honest LIR getting more + dishonest LIR getting more)
It will not stop dishonest ones. May checking the actual need may slow them down a little bit, but that is not sure either. However, the honest ones will not have to use the same practices that they already consider "cheating".
I hear your arguments but I don't think 2015-05 is the right answer for the community.
If you have any ideas, you're welcome to share. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
participants (3)
-
Arash Naderpour -
Denis Fondras -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN