[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi All,

I oppose this proposal. My reasons, or at least most of them, have
explained by other people during the last week:
 - maintaining a lack of incentive for IPv6 deployment ("still have some
 IPv4")
 - forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already,
 and possibility to make things even worse (by creating new pretext for
 "longer than /24 in GRT").

I would also add some other reasons:
 - community's duty/responsibility for future generations : apart what
 it has already been discussed (get v4 on the market, get it from
 upstream, or even "really need to get v4 ?"), we are representing here
 the RIP*E* community, with limited geographical scope. However, the
 policy is quite lax at the moment concerning the out-of-region use of
 resources, basically allowing an out-of-region entity to get resources
 with a sole promise to use *some* of them in-continent.
 - this brings us to the next point : with RIPE region being for the
 moment the second-richest RIR (v4-wise) and the lax rules regarding
 out-of-region use, I would not like RIPE NCC to become the world's
 "last resort" registry for v4 resources (or any other resources for
 that matter).

And if I were to agree with the proposal (which is not the case right
now), I would say that some thresholds should be used. Like /10 or /11
available for /23 allocations and /12 available for /24. Under no
circumstance /24 now.

-- 
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN