08:55 < maxim_ncc> Hi everyone, I'm Maxim from the RIPE NCC. If you have questions/comments for the presenter and want me to read it out, please state your name/affiliation and I'll go to the mic when questions are called for. Keep in mind that there is a 30 second delay for remote participants, so it's better to get your questions in before the question period begins. Please note that all chat transcripts will be archived and made available to the public on https://[CUT]
08:56 < GPF> Could we get the track listing for the mood soundtrack that is playing on the stream?
08:57 < maxim_ncc> i will read it out loud when the session is at its peak, any particualr speaker you want for this question? 🙂
08:57 < GPF> hehe
08:58 < GPF> well seeing the contents of the session it might provide a needed break
08:58 < GPF> maxim_ncc: you got the most interesting session
08:59 < GPF> but I have enough popcorn, let's see how it goes
09:04 < adamBB> I assume its just me, but is there meant to be sound right now?)
09:05 < ripe270> there was a party last night... i think theyre running late
09:05 < maxim_ncc> the session has begun
09:17 < maxim_ncc> Marco Schmidt, RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer, has begun the presentation «Current Policy Topics»
09:34 < maxim_ncc> Marco Schmidt has asked for questions.
09:35 < maxim_ncc> The presentation has ended.
09:36 < maxim_ncc> Discussion of Open Policy Proposals has begun.
09:37 < maxim_ncc> Erik Bais has begun his presentation on RIPE Resource Transfer Policies
09:44 < maxim_ncc> Eric Bais has asked for questions
09:54 < maxim_ncc> The presentation has ended.
09:54 < GPF> Ah that's nice
09:57 < AntonioPrado> gert, you should refresh your slides' template 🙂
09:57 < GPF> AntonioPrado: gert is not in the channel. what do you want him to change?
09:58 < GPF> I'll relay
09:58 < maxim_ncc> Riccardo Gori has begun presentation on "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"
09:58 < AntonioPrado> GPF, I know, just kidding
10:03 < maxim_ncc> Riccardo Gori has asked for questions
10:04 < maxim_ncc> The presentation has ended.
10:05 < maxim_ncc> Remco van Mook has begun the presentation «Locking Down the Final /8 Policy»
10:08 < Alexey> It's better to touch the text of 2016-03 or bette to withdraw due to many providers already setup they infra
10:08 < Alexey> *better
10:10 < maxim_ncc> @alexey: do you want me to read this out when Remco asks for questions?
10:12 < maxim_ncc> Remco van Mook has asked for questions
10:14 < ww> There are legitimate reasons why LIRs might merge that have nothing to do with avoiding the policy intention. I'm thinking of small rural providers that have a difficult enough time and need all the help and support they can get. So how about a process where the NCC checks that the intent of the merger is not simply to get around the rules?
10:14 < Alexey> It was my opinion.
10:14 < GPF> ww: That is not possible in practice.
10:14 < GPF> how would you check somethink like that
10:14 < ww> Because retroactively stripping them of resources really isn't fair.
10:15 < ww> GPF: for one you could check that they are actually using the addresses and not simply holding them.
10:16 < GPF> ww: that discussion was done on the ML multiple times. It does not work
10:16 < silviu> the problem I see with is like this: the copmanies who intend to ABUSE the policys, will just keep all LIRs open, at 1400E/year (which is 1.4E/IP/year - it's not a huge amount), and at the same time, they will have SEVERAL votes in GM and not only - they will have the power to increase the yes or no trend in a proposal, and etc.
10:17 < GPF> growth is not a feature of the /22 policy. The feature is that you can build CGNAT for your customers
10:18 < ww> GPF: that's a very hard line to take in small networks run mostly by volunteers who already have a very steep learning curve
10:19 < GPF> ww: thats the reality. IPv4 is over.
10:22 < ww> GPF: i would not be against such a policy for *future* allocations. but retroactively changing the rules is not on.
10:24 < GPF> ww: it's not retroactively. If you have it you can keep it.
10:25 < ww> GPF: unless providers merge. and numbers acquired under one set of rules now come under the new one.
10:25 < ww> so you force artificial paper arrangements, extra revenue for RIPE and disproportionate voting powers
10:25 < GPF> ww: yes. That was always the case with all proposals concerning transfers of address space.
10:26 < maxim_ncc> The presentation has ended
10:30 < maxim_ncc> Discussion of the direction of IPv4 allocation policy in general has begun
10:35 < ww> "we consciously decided not to limit it... and if people ruined it it was their own problem"
10:36 < ww> there is absolutely *nothing* in the process of becoming an lir for a new entrant, that has not a long history paying attention to ripe policy discussions, that would give them the idea that the last /8 is explicitly intended for nat of some sort
10:36 < ww> *fix that*
10:39 < David> ww: I second that
10:40 < GPF> ww: What the entrant does is his thing. He gets a /22. If he uses it for anything else than CGNAT he is welcome but he can't complain about it.
10:40 < ww> GPF: that's fair if she is told that that is what it is recommended that she should do
10:41 < GPF> ww: Every (good) consultant or specialist will tell him that.
10:41 < David> and a perfect understanding of what it means to do CGNAT, compared to big LIRs with a stockpile of IPv4, which can wait another 5 years for IPv6 adoption
10:41 < GPF> ww: If he doesn't know anything about how IPv4 / IPv6 works nowadays why does he open an LIR?
10:42 < GPF> but that gets off the track
10:43 < ww> GPF: because they want internet access, they know they need something called "ip addresses" and the people that gave them the grant to get started are clueless about the detail of what that means
10:44 < ww> and half of the consultants that they may hire are no good because the projects are so small.
10:44 < GPF> that's not a problem of the address-policy
10:44 < GPF> thats bad business decisions
10:45 < David> The policy is trying to force LIRs into IPV6, that's perfect. But is there a policy to force large/important content providers into IPv6 ?
10:45 < GPF> David: ask on the mailinglist
10:46 < ww> well, yes it is. because address-policy needs to figure out how to communicate its reasoning
10:46 < GPF> I would be happy if the content providers CDN go into IPv6
10:46 < David> Everyone would, that's the blocking point
10:47 < David> I don't really see how this could be moving forward without making a list of the Cps that matter and bring them to the table
10:47 < David> CPs: Content Providers,sorry
10:50 < ww> as usual, randy is spot on.
10:50 < maxim_ncc> This session has now ended