[address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0

If you will look into the future - all last 185 will be FINAL.
And all LIRs will have to return the space or use it and pay to RIPE for
usage even they work as with PIs as PI.
reserved space also will be FINAL.

But then after some due to space exchange under ripe more and more space
will become FINAL. So transfer policy will conflict with the space.

My opinion - just make easier for new companies to get IPs until RIPE
has it and RIPE has enough. So I don't understand why to make life
harder but not easier.


Yuri at NTX

On 18.06.2016 23:45, Ondřej Caletka wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Hello list,
> 
> I support this version of 2016-03. I think the allocations made after
> entering the post-depletion phase (that could be maybe a better name
> than the "last /8") should be either used for operating a network or
> returned to RIPE NCC.
> 
> Since there used to be a needs-based policy for pre-depletion
> allocations, stockpiling addresses for the sole purpose of selling them
> in the future was not as trivial as it is now. One had to not only have
> enough money but also cheat in the needs evaluation process.Now, when
> the needs-based approach is gone, we need something else to conserve at
> least something for new players for as long as possible.
> 
> I also like the idea of special status "ALLOCATED FINAL". I think it is
> a good starting point for the AGM to adopt a charging scheme which would
> require additional recurring fee for LIRs holding more than one such
> allocation. This is IMHO the only way how to prevent people from opening
> new LIRs as a better alternative to the IPv4 market.
>