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

>> >On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN<ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net>  wrote:
>> >
>> >On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to
>>> >>fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there
>>> >>will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30?
>>> >>years from now.
>> >
>> >Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again,
>> >the free pool will not survive 10 years.
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.
>

How is this going to happen? Will the 185/8 going to being depleted by 
new LIRs in 10 months? I'm I missing something?
Have you really read the policy change, or are you against any policy 
change by default?



>>> This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already
>>> >>have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right.
>> >
>> >Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only
>> >case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a
>> >"large enough block" (usually more than a /22).
> Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene.
>
> I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening.
>
>

I don't think this could happen, as policy's are similar to laws. If 
your government raises taxes next year you won't be able to sue them for 
that. So I think this kind of arguments have no real support.