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

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:50:43PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> We have another saying in Romania "don't sell the bear's skin while he's
> in the forrest", so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in
> any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the
> entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to
> preserve them, but that's in the past.

Oh, I could say that we told people very clearly what would come, but
since they refused to go to IPv6, it was inevitable that they would
hit the wall.  IPv4 could have been distributed slightly different, 
with maybe more stringent checks about actual use (easily fooled),
but in the end, we'd still be where we are now: some people have more
IPv4 space than they need right now, and other people have less than
they would like to have.

And we do know how the yelling and screaming of total surprise will sound
like if the last /8 is all sold up - and since the community decided that
they do not want that, we want to stick to the intent of the last /8
policy.  This proposal helps achieve that goal.

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/20150609/6bd787d2/attachment.sig>