[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Remco van Mook wrote:
> Explicitly states that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to
> all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not
> been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA

This is probably useful.  It would also probably be useful to define a
term to replace the name "last /8" so that it can be referred to
specifically in the policy documentation, e.g. "the remaining
unallocated ipv4 pool" or something along those lines.  Totally not as
catchy as "the last /8", but sadly that is the nature of policy.

> Adds a consideration to the IPv4 allocation policy that the LIR
> should conserve whole or part of their final /22 allocation for
> interoperability purposes

Neutral on this.  People will do what they are going to do, even if it's
short-sighted.

> Bans transfers of final /22 allocations

> Changes the “status”field in the RIPE Database to reflect the
> transferability of an INETNUM

I'm against this because it conflicts with the core purpose of the RIPE
registry, which is to ensure accurate registration of resources.
Formally banning transfers will not stop transfers; it will only stop
those transfers from being registered which will lead to inaccurate
registry information.

Overall, I am against the core proposal, namely banning transfers from
the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool.

Nick