[address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi,
>>> What about those holding large space and changed the policy to be 
>>> triggered when reaced a last /8 and not before?
>>> Looks like eating the chocolate top cover of the cake and leave the dry 
>>> part to the others. Here's your crumbs we are very respective.
>> Would you have preferred the ARIN way?  "Oops, we have reached exhaustion,
>> nothing left, good buy to new entrants"?
> We can't say ARIN was wrong because actually did a better job in IPv6
> growth.
Not sure if ARIN and it's (IMHO) failed IPv4 policy was the reason for
the better IPv6 growth, but any new entrant to the ISP market is paying
a hefty fee for it ... because even though the ARIN region may have a
higher IPv6 deployment, running and IPv6-only ISP business is out of the
question ... so companies have to go out and pay for an IPv4 block in
order to be able to do ANY business ... does that seem fair?

I reckon the only way to actually create a fair market would be to
either take away a percentage of assigned v4 addresses from ALL current
owners to redistribute to new entries to the market, or set a date for
disabling public v4 routing ... or maybe a third solution: Let all RIRs
take on the ARIN policy, do away with all remaining v4 addresses within
a couple days due to the incoming flood of requests, that way the price
for v4 transfers will skyrocket, making it necessary for existing v4
holders to finally implement v6, hopefully causing the v6 availability
to reach a tipping point quickly ...

I guess you will agree that neither of those solutions will be
implemented in the foreseeable future ... therefore, I agree with
sticking to the current v4 policies in an attempt to keep at least a
basic set of addresses available for new companies until the time that
public v4 has been deemed more or less irrelevant ... (hopefully, I'll
live to see the day ...)

-garry


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160511/5f4ccf6f/attachment.html>