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

I was in support of relaxing the allocation rules for existing lirs  as
long as the organisation that might benefit from extra IPs  did  transfer (
or Sell ) IP space previously allocated, to prevent further abuse.

But I can see the principal of protecting Ip space for new entrants is much
fairer and more sustainable than what would be a short sighted gain of 1024
addresses every 18 months..for existing Lirs,

Im against this proposal ... i can see the benefit of having addresses for
new entrants to the market..

No more flip flopping from me on this proposal

Thanks...


On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote:
> > the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY.
>
> The *single* "last /8"  (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most
> people consider new entry.
> Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve
> "new entry".
> Did you actually read the new text ?
>
> > pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything.
>
> No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs.
>
> --
> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
> fr.ccs
>
>


-- 
Kindest regards,
Tom Smyth

Mobile: +353 87 6193172
---------------------------------
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL
This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged.
The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail
immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the
company's  .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of
any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be
communicated in
writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening
any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage
which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160416/44767e01/attachment.html>