[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 21:29, remco van mook wrote:
> The policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the
> one allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already.

Which seemed right as long as there was a "needs requirement" and I
belived (many people still do) that it was taken seriously.
It also seemed right until you woke up 30 months later with more than
one /8 in the free pool.
For many people also seemed right as long as they were not aware that
piles of unused v4 blocks will go "on the market", including those
allocated via "last /8 policy". That looks like too much.

> It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or

It's also anti-competitive to keep out people who are looking to sign up
in 2021. All that time you just kept in the dark corner other people
that already signed up (after 09/2012, but not only).

> Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other
> reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional
> NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets
> RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically,
> allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for
> competition.

Returned ? After everything has been done to promote the address-space
market ?

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs