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

On 11 June 2016 at 21:59, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

> > I am just surprised that we encourage organisations who don't
> > participate (or have any interest in participating) in the RIPE policy
> > process, or any of the mechanics of Internet governance, to join the
> > RIPE NCC and therefore get a vote on budget and board member
> > decisions.
>
> this may seem a bit strange, but there are isps out there who are
> interested in running a network, and not internet policy, governance,
> and other things about layer seven.  there really are.
>
>
OK if they are Internet Service Providers, but my concern is RIPE are
giving address space to end users, basically because there is no PI
mechanism anymore.

So for all those people who argue we should be preserving the remaining
address space in order to allow for new ISPs entering the market for as
long as possible (which I agree with), we need to be realistic about end
users who want (what was once called) PI space and not make the only option
to be "become an LIR" with the result that we erode the free pool faster
(i.e. allocating /22 when a /24 would be more than adequate.)

Aled
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160611/b951e7f9/attachment.html>