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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


Dear Aled,
dear all,

On 13/06/2016 17:29, Aled Morris wrote:
> On 13 June 2016 at 16:15, Sylvain Vallerot <sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net <mailto:sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net>> wrote:
>>     I agree with this : remaining IPs are not intended to be used as we used to.
>>     But they are still meant to be distributed to end users, aren't they ?
> 
> RIPE-649 "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"
>     Section 5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs
>     3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation. 
>     ...
> 
> It doesn't say who these assignments are to, they could be to the LIR
> itself for their own use (as it will be in the case of end-users who
> have become LIRs purely to obtain some "psuedo-PI" address space.)

LIRs being (quite likely) End Users, this is fine.

But we definitely cannot assume that all End Users are LIRs,
nor make a policy take it for granted.

Put in another words we cannot have a policy say that an End User
needs to be a LIR to have a chance to get access to the ressource.

Allowing future End Users to have a tiny bit of IPv4 to bootstrap
means allowing *End Users*, not just those that are LIRs. Right ?

I would appreciate a confirmation from the "sitting-ones" that my 
understanding of the spirit of the last /8 policy is correct on
this point because I sometimes doubt it when reading things like 
proposal 2013-03.

Best regards,
Sylvain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlde1AMACgkQJBGsD8mtnRHH4gD/duowiNMLW8a1E1SRuYj3UgBK
QczJw7sdCw4bGICrmvEA/AjXyqIkX0xBBxk91zTgbIbVvqsVlEaPBZ/F9bygbaki
=ZT3L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----