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

Hi Denis,

Do you think that most of those "new" LIRs are in fact a new players? As long 
as we are allowed to transfer those addresses, we cannot be sure about that.

Also life isn't fair. There are LIRs with large legacy IPv4 blocks, which 
could sustain a few dosents LIRs in current policy, but hay, that's the way it 
is. They got their pools fairly/legaly as well as we are getting it now.

Other way of looking at it would be that we all should have possibility to get 
a same oportunity to get a large pool. But in that case it would be unfair to 
have 185/8 policy and we would have reached total depletion long time ago. So 
what is really fair and what is not?

Unability to getting IPv4 from RIPE doesn't mean unability to get IPv4 
conectivity. But it push the new player to start with IPv6 and get the v4 as a 
service. It would make v4 as something extra what you are forced to pay extra, 
perfect mindset to abadon it eventually.

So once again, a faster we run out of IPv4 - a better.

Martin

Dne pondělí 18. února 2019 13:04:52 CET, Denis Fondras napsal(a):
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:53:27PM +0100, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
> > 3.8k new LIRs that happily can consider starting a business
> > based on IPv4, a legacy technology, and ignore the facts.
> 
> I find this unfair. This is not "starters" who are ignoring the fact but
> those already in business (I look at you AWS among many hosters and ISP).
> Starters are only requesting IPv4 to reach ~80% of the Internet.
> 
> Denis

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190218/d12351a0/attachment.sig>