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

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016, at 14:49, Gert Doering wrote:

> A LIR that receives space, runs a network, addresses its customers, and
> might even be potentially bought one day is *not* affected (unlike 
> version 1 of the proposal) - though the proposal might be clearer on the
> intended effects of M&A.

It happens that it may well be impacted, depending on how the purchase
has been performed. 
Transfer by policy does not mean only "sell for profit".

Another "legitimate" case that will no longer be possible was an
argument what was given to me during the discussion of 2015-05:
A company becomes LIR because they need "some provider independent"
space (which today is limited to ALLOCATED PA) which usually equals to
"less than a /24 of actual need, but still a /24 for routing purposes".
They don't really need more than a /24 now and on short/medium term, and
they estimate that they will not need more than a second /24 (size chose
for routing purposes only) even in the longer term. Someone argued that
it would be legitimate and desirable for that LIR to put the remaining
/23 (considered not ever be a need) on the market. Did this became
non-legitimate over-night ?

> The *reason* why this is proposed is to discourage stockpiling of /22s
> (by opening many new LIRs, waiting two years, transfer it all into a
> joint LIR and close the others off) - taking away /22s that are supposed
> to be used by further new entrants into the market.

What exactly means stockpiling ? Opening additional LIRs to satisfy one
organisation's own need ?
In what is stockpiling "last /8 space" worse than "stokpiling IP space"
in general ? Especially for already-acquired space ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs