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

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 18:00, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> > I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible,
> > no matter what" approach.
> > For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the
> > solution is not working yet" situation.
> 
> and your solution is that you want future market entrants to suffer more
> than you're suffering now because there will be no address space
> whatsoever left for them?

They will eventually do it anyway. And I really don't belive that with
the new proposal it will be in 18 months whereas with the current one it
will be in more than 5 years.

Those being said, historically, many new (small) entrants were not
becoming LIRs from day 1. They were usually starting with some space
from an existing LIR, some of them going multihomed with that space, and
only then becoming LIR and having "their own space". 
The transfer market is discouraging this, and the limited space is also
pushing many of them to become LIR not because they really want to, but
because some upstream providers encourage them to do so in order to save
their own space ("wanna /24 - become LIR").

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs