[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

>  The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to
>  the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market
>  will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear
>  to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but
>  make the obvious loophole less attractive.

Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8.

Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's.

So what is this proposal about?

09.06.2015, 18:40, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>:
>  Hi,
>
>  On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
>>   A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be
>>   the only reason that drives our actions.
>
>  Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this.
>
>  Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this
>  list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was
>  brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed
>  that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something
>  he came up with "to increase his profits".
>
>  Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on
>  addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we
>  should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never
>  happened.
>
>  The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to
>  the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market
>  will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear
>  to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but
>  make the obvious loophole less attractive.
>
>  (So the argument "let's burn IPv4 and be done with it!" is also outside
>  the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy,
>  feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent)
>
>  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