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

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT!
>>
>
> And is that the reason policy is trying to return only smallest
> allocations and let the big allocation holders continue selling their ones?
>

As Gert wrote, it is not about returning allocations.

It also seems as if you're missing a vital point:

This policy proposal will most likely increase the time period where
network providers will be able to get IPv4 address space for
interoperability.

Regarding what big allocation holders do, this policy proposal changes
nothing. Big allocation holders cannot be affected directly by policy
change. But if big allocation holders want to transfer away part of their
allocations, to others, or new entrants, who need more space, that is
mostly a benevolent market mechanism, as it only increases the use of these
allocations.

In other words: win-win.

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/3f0ed09b/attachment.html>