[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

But the proposal doesn't forbid to open many LIRs and then merge them together.

So achieving "one LIR — one /22" is impossible.

23.04.2015, 15:20, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:07:54PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
>>  In my opinion any change to policy should reflect expectation of community as a whole.
>
> "Rough consensus" does not mean *everybody* has to agree.
>>  Current propose doesn't change anything to the direction of improvement for community.
>
> Oh, to the contrary - ensuring that allocations from the last /8 are
> not burnt like crazy (by permitting arbitrary fast trading) might not
> be something good for you personally, but for the *rest* of the community,
> it might be actually a good thing (depending on whether or not you
> believe in the rationale for the last /8 policy).
>
> The last /8 is not there to do "business as usual, based on IPv4" - it
> is there to enable *new* market entrants to run a few critical things
> with IPv4, while the main deployment has to happen on IPv6.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-- 
With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
General director, QuickSoft LLC
Tel: +7 903 1750503