>On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian
FEURDEAN<[email protected]> 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.
