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

That's not true, I know some LIRs qualified for /22 not requesting it and
they are not running on auto-pilot (there are fully aware of the market
situation)

Arash

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM, David Monosov <davidm at futureinquestion.net>
wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160513/29fe6069/attachment.html>