On 09/06/2015 12:15, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It > sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO, > dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter > IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion.
not really, no. RIPE NCC assigned number resources were and are assigned on the basis of the resource holder adhering to RIPE policy. Policy changes which apply retroactively to existing number resources have been made in the past, notably 2007-01. I.e. this policy change doesn't set a precedent. Nick
