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

Hi Remco,

On 6/16/16 6:39 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 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.

Still hate it, kill it!

>> 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.
while updating this to a form where it would be very clear is something 
I applaud, I do not think it is a must.
>
>> 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.
a good addition, also feeling neutral on telling LIRs what to use the 
resources for.
>
>> 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.
could not have said it better. While this is an interesting attempt, it 
will only drive _some_ transfers to the underground. Bad idea from my 
point of view.

Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since 
2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after 
the moment of the allocation) will end up with an allocation that is no 
longer transferable. I do not like policy proposals that apply 
retroactively, you should have thought of this in 2012 before the 'run out'.

>
> Overall, I am against the core proposal, namely banning transfers from
> the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool.
+1
> Nick
>
elvis