[address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy

Hello,

I think this was discussed during the last RIPE meeting and it was 
rejected by Nigel due to not being "legal" to raise fees like this.

Regards,
Radu

On 06/21/2016 12:20 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> I just had a thought.
>
> What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses 
> available to new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get 
> one post-exhaustion /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in 
> trying to stop people from getting many /22:s. People have been trying 
> to game this, by getting /22 and closing the LIR, thus avoiding the 
> LIR fee. Changes in the policy has been all about trying to limit 
> transfers etc, setting policy from what should happen with /22s, 
> stopping transfers (so people still have to pay LIR fees, one per /22 
> etc).
>
> Since it's actually the post-exhaustion /22 we're after why not do this:
>
> The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR 
> fee. If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived.
>
> Doesn't this just solve the problem everybody is arguing about? Now 
> all of a sudden it's not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care 
> any more if people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same.
>