[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On 11 June 2016 at 13:01, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016, at 17:19, Aled Morris wrote:
>
> > I'm curious to know what benefit such customers perceive from being LIRs
> > (rather than just taking IP address space from you).
>
> Hi,
>
> They have "their own" space, one /22 for them alone.



I agree that's all they want.

Do we really want dozens (hundreds even) of "members" who have no interest
whatsoever in the good of the community, participating in the policy
making, education or technical standards?

Worst case, what if they got together and voted to demutualise RIPE?

Realistically, I'd rather we went back to offering /24 (or less) of PI
space to end users via their existing LIRs rather than burning /22's for
end-users who think they might be missing out if they don't lay claim to
their IPv4 space now.

Many of the ISPs I know are advising their large business customers to
"register with RIPE for IPv4 space" without really bothering to understand,
or caring, they are joining a membership organisation.

Aled
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160611/3431dd8a/attachment.html>