Like the curate's egg, this proposal is good in parts. Here's the good part:
> - Explicitly state that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to > all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not > been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA The rest of the proposal is - like the rest of the curate's egg - best deposited in the compost bin. Specifically, it will not deal with the problem that the RIPE NCC was set up to do, namely to ensure accurate registration of resources. On the contrary, it will encourage black-market transfer of /22s and probably a proliferation of one-allocation-per-shelf-company allocations, because paying €1400 per annum for 1024 addresses is still a cheaper option in the medium term than buying addresses outright on the market (1024/€1400 = €0.73 per address per annum). At this stage, APWG is being trolled with "let's change the last /8 policy" proposals. It's clear that there isn't consensus on 2015-05 and that there won't be any consensus on this proposal either, so I'd politely like to ask the chairs to do two things: 1. declare their opinion on whether 2015-05 reached consensus 2. use the bunfight which is inevitably going to happen in Copenhagen to allow them to exercise more restraint about what sort of proposals hit the mailing list in future so that we don't spend years wasting time squabbling about the dregs sitting at the bottom of the ipv4 allocation barrel. (ap-wg chairs: for the record, this is a "I object" email). Nick
