[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 08:27:00PM +0300, Momchil Petrov wrote:
> The situation seems to me big-LIR don't allow new-LIR to grow up... is 
> this cartel or something

There is no way a "new-LIR" can grow to, say, a /12 level that some of
the big and old Telcos have - which is unfortunate, but we did not make
IPv4 with these short addresses.

To the contrary: *because* the policy is so restrictive, "new-LIR" can
have a business at all - if we had no last-/8 restrictions, RIPE NCC would
have run out of addresses over a year ago, so "nothing at all" for new-LIRs.

Which is more fair?

(And we have this restrictive policy because the *old* LIRs restricted
themselves(!) from eating up all the space, leaving something for the
new LIRs to come)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160415/444821f9/attachment.sig>