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

Hi Mikael,

> These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 without this policy.
> 
> So they were only able to get addresses at all because these addresses were saved to be used under different policy, thus under restrictions.
> 
> I was one of the proponents of this. I have subsequently changed my mind and I am now of the opinion that we should not have any /8 policy at all, and just hand out the rest of the IPv4 space to current LIRs and let the market handle the rest. It's obvious from the discussions here that most people do not appreciate the intention behind the last-/8 policy, and our attempts to try to help new entrants into the market has failed.

I share your sentiment. It's tempting to assume that all the new LIRs are ungrateful and don't appreciate what this community did for them before their companies even existed, and that we therefore failed. I still resist that temptation and hope that the silent majority is actually appreciative that we didn't leave them in the cold.

> So let's just get it over with and exhaust all the rest of RIPE NCC free addresses immediately by some scheme to divvy up whatever free resources are left to the members and after that, let all restrictions go.
> 
> If we're actually exhausted then some people might get on with deploying IPv6, I hear some people not deploying because they see that RIPE isn't completely exhausted yet.

Yeah, I have heard that repeatedly over the last couple of years. I'm still explaining that the remaining IPv4 resources are a special-case so that newcomers get a small foothold in the IPv4 world as part of their NCC membership and not be left completely to the whims of the market. That there is a remaining pool doesn't mean it's business as usual, or that that pool should be used as a cheap source of an expensive resource for sale on the market. Some people seem to have trouble understanding that.

It's indeed disappointing that not all current participants share the selfless principles of the ones that made the policies before them. But those principles and fair policies are what I'm still fighting for.

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161021/cbbee30f/attachment.sig>