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

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, remco van mook wrote:

>       I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those
>       that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more
>       space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via
>       the transfer market is really high).
>       - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please
>       share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.
> 
> 
> 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.  

Yes. That was my idea as well, when we were discussing the last /8 policy: 
that I would have liked to have a "last /8 policy" to be about the "last 
/8", i.e. 185/8 and then the possible other free pool could have been 
treated differently.

But now this seems all overtaken by events and we have left what we have 
left.

The major result of this proposal is likely to be an empty free pool and 
the broker market as the only market.

I do not support this policy.

Cheers,

Daniel

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 45 094							      556741-1193
104 30 Stockholm