[address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi,

This policy may actually reduce the depletion rate for last /8, but without
it the last /8 can be used more day by day.
In the real world, even when a customer needs for example an /24, they need
to become an LIR (and get the /22 from the last /8) as their old LIR cannot
provide them with additional blocks. That also speed up the depletion of
last /8. have you considered these when you made your objection?

This policy is not increasing the demand for IPv4, It creates a possibility
for small LIRs to receive additional blocks (not from last /8) based on
some conditions, so no change in depletion rate from my point of view.

Regards,

Arash Naderpour




On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Peter Hessler <phessler at theapt.org> wrote:

> On 2016 May 09 (Mon) at 14:19:43 +0200 (+0200), Riccardo Gori wrote:
> :Hi Sander,
> :
> :Il 09/05/2016 10:42, Sander Steffann ha scritto:
> :>Hello Ehsan,
> :>
> :>>we are agree about the Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal .
> :>>https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
> :>thank you for expressing your support. However, at this point in the
> discussion we have seen enough support but not enough work solving the
> objections that have een raised. That is what is needed currently to work
> towards consensus. Without addressing those objections this policy proposal
> gets stuck.
> :Can you please summarize us the main objections about this 2015-05 policy
> so
> :that people can try to address a solution to those?
>
> My main objection to this proposal is simple:  It depletes the available
> pool for _new_ participants faster.  I strongly believe any new actor
> should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available
> from RIPE.  For an actor with non-zero addresses to get more addresses,
> there is a secondary market.
>
> Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a
> middle ground can be met.  Based on my understanding of the other
> objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the
> objection side.
>
> I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any
> solution can be proposed.
>
> (note: my stance is based on forming a LIR simply to get any amount of
> announcable addresses.)
>
> --
> Quick!!  Act as if nothing has happened!
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160509/05486e30/attachment.html>