[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
> is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
> to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
> These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several
> restrictions:
>
> -    These allocation are not transferrable
> -    LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
> -    Sub-allocations are not possible
> -    Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>     https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
<snip>

Hi all,

Based on the extended discussion on the other proposal on the table
and that we are supposed to work together toward consensus I got
a few questions to the community regarding this proposal.


Since this proposal opened the door on introducing restriction on
an IPv4 block I'll follow that up...

1.) what sort of restriction are we willing to put on address space? How
and where, and in what direction can we think of restriction? On where
it be used? On how it can be used, and what type of restriction?
You have to publish IPv6 for any services/things using this address
space?



2.) the second part of the question, please do not mix it up with the
first one, how can restriction be implemented and enforced? Do we
have to introduce "need based requests" again? RPKI? Withdraw?
Just - if we're following the path of restriction, what tools do we have
available?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no