[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Adrian Pitulac
adrian at idsys.ro
Sat Apr 16 14:48:44 CEST 2016
>> >On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN<ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: >> > >> >On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote: >>> >> >>> >>I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to >>> >>fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so there >>> >>will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? 20? 30? >>> >>years from now. >> > >> >Unless massive amount of space is returned or we change the rules again, >> >the free pool will not survive 10 years. > Maybe, maybe not. > > This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it. > How is this going to happen? Will the 185/8 going to being depleted by new LIRs in 10 months? I'm I missing something? Have you really read the policy change, or are you against any policy change by default? >>> This proposal, if adopted, would be also unfair on the LIRs who *already >>> >>have* taken action to deal with the v4 run-out. That can’t possibly be right. >> > >> >Actually no. On the contrary, they may have some fresh air. The only >> >case where they may be impacted is going to the market and purchasing a >> >"large enough block" (usually more than a /22). > Nope. If I was an LIR who had deployed IPv6 or NAT or bought space because the NCC couldn’t give me more than 1 /22, I’d sue for damages if the policy was later changed to allow multiple /22s. I wouldn’t have had those deployment hassles and costs if the NCC had allocated me a few more /22s. A really angry LIR could go to court for Injunctive Relief and also get their government and regulators to intervene. > > I hope you agree we don’t want to adopt something which increases the risk of these unpleasantries happening. > > I don't think this could happen, as policy's are similar to laws. If your government raises taxes next year you won't be able to sue them for that. So I think this kind of arguments have no real support.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]