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

Hi,

Do we actually know how many such instances exists where someone spawned 
LIRs for profit? I don't care how many LIRs a company has spawned, I 
care if they did it for profit. I doubt we have any idea. To be honest I 
think we are debating a policy here based on the supposition that there 
are a lot of LIRs doing this, without any actual proof.

And even if they did it for profit, it's not like the IPs are going in 
some other galaxy. They remain in the RIPE region part of some LIR. That 
LIR will eventually either close, or transfer their IPv4. So it's not 
like the IPv4 is vanishing. I don't see where the problem is. The IPv4 
pool is going to be depleted sooner or later, no matter what policy we 
come up to meanwhile. What then?

The real solution is to stop changing policy, or lower the "/22" 
allocation size to "/24". This will provide a good enough start in terms 
of IPv4 resources, and the newly established LIRs are free to get their 
extra IPv4 from somewhere else, just like they are free to get their 
resources from somewhere else when they start with just a "/22".

Regards,
Radu Gheorghiu

On 06/20/2016 12:16 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
>>> This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the
>>> burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network
>>> with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.
>> When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need
>> to be returned to RIPE NCC.
> Yes.  But that's a side effect of not allowing transfers of these /22s.
>
> Basically, the discussion *should* try to focus on this point, and not
> run around the mill with non-sensical arguments.
>
>   - do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no?
>
> If we want restrictions, then this will have consequences (like, if you
> close your LIR and are not selling off the whole business, the /22 will
> be returned).
>
> If we want *no* restrictions, this will also have consequences - namely,
> some (few) people making money based on resources other folks have set
> aside to be there for the long-term good of the RIPE region, which many
> others see as immoral and abusive.
>
> But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer
> the question.
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster