Jim Reid wrote: > Third, I think it’s unwise to have a firm rule on transfers. Though I > understand why you’ve suggested this: it’s meant to stop LIRs selling > off these extra addresses. For one thing, there can be valid reasons > for transferring space that don’t involve selling IPv4 addresses - a > business reorganisation for instance. Next, if an LIR wants extra > /22s in order to sell the addresses, they’d still do that > irrespective of what the transfer restrictions were in place.
fourth: this suggestion proposes to revert to a "needs" based allocation policy. This policy was removed a couple of years ago for good reasons which are still valid now and it is not realistic to expect that the clock is going to be turned back on this. Nick
