[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Andrew,

Well done! (others might disagree)

ps: Maybe someone needs to kickstart a new policy proposal about this.

Regards,
Carlos Friaças

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Andrew de la Haye wrote:

> Dear Peter,
>
>>  [from the impact assessmant]
>>
>>  Returned IPv4 addresses from LIRs and End Users and addresses received
>>  from IANA's recovered pool are currently added to the RIPE NCC's available
>>  IPv4 pool. >If this proposal is accepted, legacy resources that have been
>>  handed over to the RIPE NCC will also be added to the available pool.
>>  Currently, the RIPE NCC >holds a total of ten /24 IPv4 legacy resources.
>>
>>  With apologies for lack of research; under what policy was this space
>>  "accepted"
>>  and not marked for return to IANA?
>
> There is no policy to give us guidance on what to do with received legacy 
> space. However, the RIPE NCC has previously taken the initiative and returned 
> address space to IANA on two separate occasions:
>
> 22 May 2012
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/ripe-ncc-returns-legacy-address-space-to-iana
>
> 22 April 2014
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/legacy-ipv4-address-space-returned-to-iana
>
> More recently, we have kept this address space separate and have not added it 
> to our available pool.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andrew de la Haye
> Chief Operations Officer
> RIPE NCC
>