[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

It would be completely irrational for any LIR that qualifies for additional IPv4
space not to request it.

Any LIRs not having done so yet despite qualifying are likely running on
auto-pilot in the enterprise world or are prevented from doing so by
organizational red tape of some sort.

There is undoubtedly a price point at which instead of the e-mails from would-be
IPv4 brokers currently circulating that solicit LIRs to sell or lease
unadvertised / unused space, LIRs will begin receiving e-mails from the same
brokers with the subject line "Did you know you qualify for additional IP space
you could sell at a considerable profit? We can help!".

I suspect Remco's back-of-a-napkin calculations are actually incredibly
conservative, and would like to reiterate my objection to 2015-05 and any future
policy aiming to loosen the allocation criteria of the remaining crumbs of IPv4.

Seeking to maximize the return on one's LIR fees is a perfectly rational
expression of self-interest, but it is hardly a demonstration of responsible
custodianship of the future of the Internet.

--
Respectfully yours,

David Monosov

On 12/05/16 00:06, Remco van Mook wrote:
> 
> There won't be space for newcomers in there.
> 
> Remco
>