I’m inclined to disagree with proposal I used to see and I have a different take on it.
We have the main problem: there are no IPv4 address space for all. This proposal just take privilege to old LIR's and limit in rights all new LIR's. But this does not solve the problem. We need to use IPv4 more effectively and stimulate to use IPv6. Why can't we add some payment for ALL current IPv4 blocks? For example, 0.5$/year for IP. All unusable IPv4 will be returned as unprofitable. What the difference between unused space from last /8 and unused space from first /8? And what the differnce between old and new LIR's? Also we need simple rules and right for all. A lot of new statuses and fields is not good to perception system. BR, Alexey Galaev +7 985 3608004, http://vpsville.ru ----- Исходное сообщение ----- От: "Stefan Prager" <[email protected]> Кому: [email protected] Отправленные: Суббота, 18 Июнь 2016 г 13:58:48 Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) > On 2016-06-17 21:09:21 CET, Remco van Mook wrote: > Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because the > change itself is not part of current policy? I strongly oppose your proposal as it seeks to selectively strip Provider Aggregatable(PA) resource holders of their rights solely justified by your belief that this is how allocations allocated after the 14th September 2012 are supposed to be treated. If you are concerned about people selling off address space allocated after the 14th September 2012 for profit you can propose to change the holding period from two years to three or four years or even introduce a transfer fee like other Regional Internet Registries(RIRs) have in place. Such changes would be just and apply to all Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations and not just to Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations allocated after the 14th September 2012. Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
