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

As said many-many times /22 reselling from last /8 is not significant.

I really tired to repeat this. And It's objective view. You (and anybody else) can calculate all digest which were brought and make sure it's really so.

But I hear again and again that "we should stop abusing", "it's not intend of last /8 policy" etc WITHOUT real arguments.

It will be better to start from owners of really big (and unused) blocks which were allocated by RIPE NCC to such owners before last /8.

09.06.2015, 23:32, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:07:59PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
>>  > With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started
>>  > over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into
>>  > it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable
>>  > projection.
>>
>>  So we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion" and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes?
>
> We see behaviour that is unwanted, and is violating the expressed spirit
> of the last /8 policy.
>
> And your own numbers nicely demonstrated that this is growing quite fast.
>
> So, thanks for making the point that this policy is indeed necessary.
>
> 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