Re: [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Yuri,

> If you will look into the future - all last 185 will be FINAL.
> And all LIRs will have to return the space or use it and pay to RIPE for
> usage even they work as with PIs as PI.
> reserved space also will be FINAL.
> 
> But then after some due to space exchange under ripe more and more space
> will become FINAL. So transfer policy will conflict with the space.

You seem to be under the false impression that all space transferred will also 
be marked ALLOCATED FINAL. This is incorrect, this policy only marks the /22s 
handed out by RIPE NCC as such.

> My opinion - just make easier for new companies to get IPs until RIPE
> has it and RIPE has enough. So I don't understand why to make life
> harder but not easier.

This is out of scope. We already discussed a policy that tried that and it 
didn't get consensus.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Daniel Suchy  wrote:

> Hello,
>

Hello,


>
> Do we really want do block new organisations with new allocations, but
> allow old (happy) one to do anything with addresses tehy have...? That's
> not fair.
>

I'm afraid that "fair" in that regard, is impossible to achieve.


> There're organisations, which have large allocations and they're
> sometimes not taking care - they have enough IPv4 addresses, nothing is
> pushing them to implement IPv6, or save address space by implementation
> of some NAT solution. If they decide to sell their business, policy will
> allow that - but, if "new" resource holder will try similar thing,
> policy will ban then?
>

No, the new policy does not ban selling their business (merger/acquisition).

My point is simple - there should be ONLY ONE POLICY - independent on
> time of allocation. Such policy must limit not only new LIRs (using
> addresses from last /8), but also old LIRs holding addresses from old
> allocations.
>

Why do you want to do that?


>
> And if we really want to reclaim some address space, we should review
> current allocations - in terms of current situation in IPv4 world.
>
>
How do you propose to go about that?

-- 
Jan