[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders

>> in addition to ideas stated here to take away our legacy IP
>> allocations and give us /22s and force us to use NAT and
>> reengineer our 10,000 node university networks
>
> No idea where this idea came from.  No-one has ever suggested this or even
> remotely implied it.  Quite the opposite in fact.

Uh...  I think this came from Message-ID:
<503D6B00.7000605 at elabnet.de>, from Michael Markstaller earlier
in this thread, ref.

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2012-August/001738.html

Just for the record: I consider his suggestion to be totally
outlandish, just the notion that "all one needs at any one time as a
user is a single NAT'ed socket" is so far out of touch with what
consitutes "need" that the rest isn't really worthy of comments.

However, just for the record, let me say this: the community really
should accept that historical assignments should not be put into
question, at least not as part of this discussion, also not at the
present time, and it is somewhat doubtful that they ever can be.
The only realistic and straight-forward way to re-claim legacy IPv4
address space is through voluntary surrender by the current holder.

Therefore, I think I agree with what Daniel Karrenberg said about
what the present discussion should be about, I'm quoting:

   So what we have to decide as a community is: under which policies
   does the RIPE community allow legacy space holders to register
   their address space in the RIPE Internet Number registry. Nothing
   more, nothing less.

   All other questions are secondary. Resolving conflicts about the
   holdership/use of the address space is a non issue. Past agreements
   about allocation of address space are a non issue. [...]

(I have a question of terminology that I'll bring up in a separate
message.)

Best regards,

- Håvard