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

Hi Sebastian
By RIPE NCC policy definition you are right. 
In reality there IPv4. If there wasn't, there shouldn't have been IPv4
trades. 
When demands could not get satisfied, then there won't be anymore IPv4


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Sebastian Wiesinger
Sent: June 17, 2016 5:10 PM
To: Payam Poursaied <payam at rasana.net>
Cc: 'Sander Steffann' <sander at steffann.nl>; 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)

* Payam Poursaied <payam at rasana.net> [2016-06-17 13:00]:
> 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.

THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT!

Sebastian

--
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE
SCYTHE.
            -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant