[address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05

> On 11 May 2016, at 09:29, Enrico Diacci <ed at tsnet.it> wrote:
> 
> When an LIR can claim to have reached 4 (or 5) stars of RIPEness for IPv6
> may require an additional /22 (if you do not already have space equivalent
> to a /20) stating its reasons for the new allocation with a project and
> proving to have it completed within one year.
> 
> This new /22 will in no way be transferred before 3-5 years.
> 
> I tried to remove the term of 18 months: what do you think about?

Not a lot. But thanks for the suggestions and for trying to move things forward.

First off, I am adamantly opposed to any policy proposal which will speed up depletion of the NCC’s IPv4 pool. Though if someone can come up with a convincing case for wiping it out, I would reconsider. Until then, the current policy is the least worst option IMO and we should keep it.

Second, coupling any policy to RIPEness metrics is a very bad idea. Those metrics may change or even go away. [Who decides about that BTW.] They can be easily gamed too. Just do whatever needs to be done with IPv6 to get the extra IPv4 space and then take it down. Repeat.

Third, I think it’s unwise to have a firm rule on transfers. Though I understand why you’ve suggested this: it’s meant to stop LIRs selling off these extra addresses. For one thing, there can be valid reasons for transferring space that don’t involve selling IPv4 addresses - a business reorganisation for instance. Next, if an LIR wants extra /22s in order to sell the addresses, they’d still do that irrespective of what the transfer restrictions were in place.