Just two small comments..
Correct.. Having last /8 policy permits allowing new LIR to appear..
This is ok and can go on... Is there a reason why IANA blocks
redistribution to existing small LIR's will restrict this /8 policy? I
don't see it.. Imposing IPv6 deployment with this redistribution will
just bring benefits.
I'm a little doubtful that old LIR's restricted themselves from eating
up all the space. I'm more inclining to believe that certain old LIR's
made a big business from this, by creating an artificial market and then
sold their free ip pools on the market for a hefty profit. Not to say
about the greedy ones who destroyed small ISP's just to make profit from
the ip ranges they had.
With regards,
Adrian Pitulac
On 15/04/16 21:23, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 08:27:00PM +0300, Momchil Petrov wrote:
The situation seems to me big-LIR don't allow new-LIR to grow up... is
this cartel or something
There is no way a "new-LIR" can grow to, say, a /12 level that some of
the big and old Telcos have - which is unfortunate, but we did not make
IPv4 with these short addresses.
To the contrary: *because* the policy is so restrictive, "new-LIR" can
have a business at all - if we had no last-/8 restrictions, RIPE NCC would
have run out of addresses over a year ago, so "nothing at all" for new-LIRs.
Which is more fair?
(And we have this restrictive policy because the *old* LIRs restricted
themselves(!) from eating up all the space, leaving something for the
new LIRs to come)
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
