[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Just two small comments..

Correct.. Having last /8 policy permits allowing new LIR to appear.. 
This is ok and can go on... Is there a reason why IANA blocks 
redistribution to existing small LIR's will restrict this /8 policy? I 
don't see it.. Imposing IPv6 deployment with this redistribution will 
just bring benefits.

I'm a little doubtful that old LIR's restricted themselves from eating 
up all the space. I'm more inclining to believe that certain old LIR's 
made a big business from this, by creating an artificial market and then 
sold their free ip pools on the market for a hefty profit. Not to say 
about the greedy ones who destroyed small ISP's just to make profit from 
the ip ranges they had.

With regards,
Adrian Pitulac

On 15/04/16 21:23, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 08:27:00PM +0300, Momchil Petrov wrote:
>> The situation seems to me big-LIR don't allow new-LIR to grow up... is
>> this cartel or something
> There is no way a "new-LIR" can grow to, say, a /12 level that some of
> the big and old Telcos have - which is unfortunate, but we did not make
> IPv4 with these short addresses.
>
> To the contrary: *because* the policy is so restrictive, "new-LIR" can
> have a business at all - if we had no last-/8 restrictions, RIPE NCC would
> have run out of addresses over a year ago, so "nothing at all" for new-LIRs.
>
> Which is more fair?
>
> (And we have this restrictive policy because the *old* LIRs restricted
> themselves(!) from eating up all the space, leaving something for the
> new LIRs to come)
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- APWG chair