[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:18:44PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> Assignments are between LIR and end user and at this moment RIPE doesn't
> care much about them, only, as you mentioned, that they are properly
> reflected in the registry.
> 
> If there were a policy already allowing RIPE to get back allocations, I
> think the situation would have been different (I can't stop thinking
> about my chinese "friend")
> 
> Maybe it is time to create such policy. It will not be easy but maybe we
> are able to come up with some rules that NCC can implement and get back
> some of the space that we all know it's just waiting for a better price.

I could point out that *this* would very much be "retroactively applying
policy"...

(And there would still never be sufficient IPv4, so I think that's why
the community decided a few years ago to not bother going there - we've
discussed this at RIPE meetings every now and then, and decided to better
focus on making good IPv6 policies instead)

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/20151021/8de69316/attachment.sig>