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

> help the last /8 pool become even larger

It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together.

So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion

> The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware
> of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware
> that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread.

Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion.

09.06.2015, 19:10, "Ciprian Nica" <office at ip-broker.uk>:
> Hi,
>
> Each of us has his passions and wants to shout his opinion. I didn't get
> involved at all in this discussion even though I was aware of every
> argument from the begining.
>
> The RIPE community is not like other masses that can be easily
> manipulated as most are very intelligent IT professionals. Therefore I
> considered is better to step asside, as I'm in the IPv4 brokering business.
>
> I "saw" a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical,
> analysis of the policy effects.
>
> Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my
> opinion the adoption of this policy will :
>  - increase membership fees
>  - increase IPv4 address prices
>  - help the last /8 pool become even larger
>
> A policy is adopted today for today's situation. Personally I would not
> care what the original intent was, I would only focus on solving today's
> issues. I don't expect the original intent was to have a "last /8" pool
> that would just keep growing "forever".
>
> Theese are my arguments against the policy.
>
> The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware
> of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware
> that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread.
>
> Ciprian
>
> On 6/9/2015 6:56 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>>  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

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