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

Martin,

> 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.
> 

These "new LIRs" I consider "already in business", they do not fall into the
category I was discussing.

> 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.
> 

What I called "unfair" was the assumption that "real" new players were happy
with starting (and maintaining) a legacy IPv4 network today.

Sorry if I was not clear.

> Unability to getting IPv4 from RIPE doesn't mean unability to get IPv4 
> conectivity.
>

I agree.

Denis