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

Gert Doering <gert at space.net> writes:

> But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further
> changes to the IPv4 policy

For what it's worth, the new version suits us just fine. Marking the
numbers as non-transferrable should raise the barrier for
speculators which seems likely to help the situation. Raising the
barrier much higher would put new entrants, particularly in rural areas
in conditions of market failure at a serious disadvantage. I would still
like to see some requirement to demonstrate that addresses are actually
assigned and in use even in the case of mergers though.

Best wishes,
-w

-- 
William Waites
Network Engineer
HUBS AS60241