[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 21:10, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:19:04PM +0100, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> >The limitation to only one /22 (from the last /8) per LIR has been 
> >approved by this community years ago. Reverting this policy proposal 
> >is a discussion that I would like to see in a separate thread and not 
> >part of the discussion of this policy proposal.
> 
> I didn't argue for a reversal of "last /8", merely against fixing
> every "loop-hole" in order to make the ipv4 misery run even longer.

If we are to "terminate the misery sooner rather than later", while
ensuring the fairness, how about allowing for a second /22 under
conditions such as:
 - 2/3/5 years after the first allocation from 185/8
 - only for LIRs started after a certain date (??? 09/2012 ???)
Does anyone think this makes any sense ?

Just as a reminder, no matter how much we push IPv6, as of today
(22/02/2015) you need IPv4 if:
 - you want MPLS in your network (in real-life, MPLS signalling is still
 v4-only)
 - want to sell to business customers (which barely give a s*** on v6).

> I'd like to see ipv6 deployment get some (more) traction while
> I'm still alive tbh. And I think that leaving the speculators to
> it might accelerate that a lot more than giving out golden stars

Nope. You (we) need to be more inventive than that.