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

Hi Sander
Thank you for your reply

> We allowed transfers to get unused allocations back in use. If you need
more than your /22 then that is where you need to go. RIPE NCC doesn't have
enough addresses to give everybody what they want.

So, let's keep the transfers and not restrict part of that. Also 24-month
lock after transfer is still there. 
And once more, you know the eco system better. Please consider the whole
system. In the supply-demand market is there. This proposal would create a
second grade IP blocks and bring more trade games in



-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Sander Steffann
Sent: June 17, 2016 3:50 PM
To: Payam Poursaied <payam at rasana.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15
July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi,

> My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of 
> IPv4 for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which 
> help those who really require IP, can get IP.

I wish we could, but IPv4 has run out. If we went back to the previous
allocation policy and would hand out addresses from the pool based on bed
then that pool would be empty in a month or two, and then we would be in a
worse situation than we are now because then even handing out a /22 to a new
LIR would be impossible.

We allowed transfers to get unused allocations back in use. If you need more
than your /22 then that is where you need to go. RIPE NCC doesn't have
enough addresses to give everybody what they want.

Cheers,
Sander