[address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:21AM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> I oppose policy 2015-01 because it can affect LIRs which are not new but
> they recently have received their /22 from last /8. (For example an LIR
> which is registered in 2010 and  just received its /22)
> the LIR is not established to just receive the /22 but it has to wait for 2
> years to be able to transfer it and I don't see any reason for this
> limitation. As a side effect it makes it harder for IP distribution which is
> the main goal of RIPE.

This is not a new argument.  It has been brought up, addressed, and indeed, 
this is one of the actual *goals* of the policy: stop LIRs from trading 
away /22s right away.

I can see that those LIRs planning to trade off their /22 as soon as possible
will not like the policy change, but I think we'll have to live with that
(totally unexpected) side effect.

(Besides, the main goal of RIPE is not "enable people to sell /22s" but
"ensure that the remaining scraps of IPv4 address space are distributed in
a way that is as fairly as possible, given the inherent unfairness of a 
run-out situation")

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150701/63fc1b60/attachment.sig>