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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:
>I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version
>(and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as
>it is quite different from the first version.

Nope, still hate it, kill it with fire.

>Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on
>all "last /8 space"* going forward, and there is some language
>added to the policy that tries to raise awareness that if you
>just go and parcel out that entire allocation to endusers, you
>might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple of years from
>now.

There are many non-speculative reasons why a LIR might want to
transfer resources to another. There are also many LIRs now who
have (or *will have* if this passes) no ipv4 resources
other than this ALLOCATED FINAL space. these LIRs are bascially
damned to forever (or until ipv6 is ubiquitous, whichever happens
first) to not change their organisational structure in any way
for fear of losing even this allocation.

This can only lead to a proliferation of LIRs for resource
protection purposes, a lot of painful and unneccessary
re-numbering and, ultimately, to unrecorded "black market"
trading of resources - something the "last /8" policy was
specifically intended to prevent.

Disclaimer: Nothing in shis statement shall be construed as
accepting the right of the "community" to regulate M&A or any
other business decisions a LIR may or may not make.

rgds,
Sascha Luck