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

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Alexey Galaev <alex at vpsville.ru> wrote:

> I’m inclined to disagree with proposal I used to see and I have a
> different take on it.
>
> We have the main problem: there are no IPv4 address space for all. This
> proposal just take privilege to old LIR's and limit in rights all new
> LIR's. But this does not solve the problem. We need to use IPv4 more
> effectively and stimulate to use IPv6. Why can't we add some payment for
> ALL current IPv4 blocks?


Because this group decides address policy, not membership fees.


> For example, 0.5$/year for IP. All unusable IPv4 will be returned as
> unprofitable. What the difference between unused space from last /8 and
> unused space from first /8?


The difference is that there is no "unused space from first /8".


> And what the differnce between old and new LIR's?
>

The difference appears to be that the old LIRs wanted new LIRs to have a
chance to exist, while new LIRs do not want new LIRs to exist.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/25664bdd/attachment.html>