[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

> On Feb 6, 2019, at 16:24, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In that case, IPv4 is "basically useless" from a business point of view.
> 
> But that statement is provably false.
> 
> Additionally, a lot of business is about providing services that are *not* connectivity-based, to a lot of customers.
> 
> Additionally, a lot of connectivity services can be provided via NAT.
> 
> And so on.

If I am right we talk about resources that can be obtained by new LIR. If a LIR already has some
IPv4 block it cannot claim to get  some other block from RIPE NCC according to the policy. And
what does the LIR status give to the LIR? It gives possibility to get IP addresses. So a LIR is been
registering to obtain IPs. Anything else? So a new LIR must pay $1400 annually to have ghostly
possibility to obtain IPv4 addresses. May be. Later. After years (multiply by $1400). It has not these
addresses and his/her busyness will suffer from lack of IPv4 addresses. As for me in this case I
would not wait IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC. Either I make busyness only on IPv6 or I buy IPv4
addresses on the market (after this I cannot claim to get addresses from RIPE NCC, right?). What
are we talking about? Show me please use case for participant of the waitlist. Who is he/she?

> 
> This line of argument is not fruitful, sorry. Please abandon it.
> -- 
> Jan

--
Best regards

Taras Heichenko
tasic at hostmaster.ua