On Tue, May 17, 2016, at 14:46, Remco van Mook wrote: > > So this includes LIR's who already have (through acquisition of other > > companies) multiple /22 from the last /8 > > It doesn't apply retroactively - so if you have already merged LIRs and > are currently holding multiple /22s form the final /8 you're fine. It > does stop future cases though.
This is not exactly my reading of the new 5.1.5. If a LIR already holds several /22 and stays the way it is, OK, it stays the same. However, if a LIR, holding several "last /22" *today* acquires another LIR having a "last /22" and proceeds to a merger, in my reading it is supposed to loose the equivalent of "last /8 space" it already has. And I this cannot stop me thinking about the incitation of keeping as many LIRs as possible alive. You can always buy another company and keep the LIR, and this will be exactly what will happen if this policy gets implemented. This is basically a first (err, or is it a second) step to transforming RIPE NCC to a profitable "for profit" company. And if it will not be RIPE NCC getting the profits, it will be the "old LIRs" getting all the benefits (one single membership fee instead of several). I can see a hat there.... Otherwise: - still no incitation to deploy IPv6. Zero. Nada. a.k.a. "IPv4 is good, please go to the market; IPv6 really is irrelevant". - I don't get the point for the "reverse delegation restriction". BTW, how do you define "another party" ? - see the arguments for 2015-05 (I suppose this proposal is just the counter-reaction to that one), what you say is just dust in new entrants' eyes : "you have a /22 to start, but nothing more to live". It also misses the point of what is a "new entrant" today : i.e. not always someone prepared to do the "registry" job - "registry" like the "R" in LIR. Circumvention : keep up with multiple LIRs, for NCC's profit. But after all, I can also understand the very high possibility that this proposal is only a bad joke (even it we're May 15th, not April 1st). Just in case it's not clear, I'm completely against. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
