[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria

I support 2015-5, I don’t see any benefit to migrate to IPv6 at the moment (and in short term) and prefer to use IPv4 as long as I can. As I'm not looking at last /22 as a migration tool to IPv6, receiving more IPv4 from RIPE NCC looks fine to me.

Arash


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christopher Kunz
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:47 AM
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria

Hello,

> There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving 
> a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each .
> 
> I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or 
> should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really 
> needs them.

> 
> proposal appropriate and acceptable.
> Also you need to put a brake to trade of the  IPv4 networks

It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from scratch only a few years ago.

Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business.

Regards,

--ck