The only provision in the list of 4 items below which I would support is the first one: "These allocation[s] are not transferable"
In the case that these addresses are no longer used or needed, they have to be returned to "Last /8" Pool at the RIPE NCC. Number 2 - is a non-starter for me, because it is easily circumvented and difficult to check and to enforce. Number 3 - has already been commented on, as contradicting the model and mode of operation of an LIR. Number 4 - I don't get, neither what the intention is, nor the mechanism to manage that. Wilfried On 2016-05-17 14:05, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool > to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received). > These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several > restrictions: > > - These allocation are not transferrable > - LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition > - Sub-allocations are not possible > - Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <[email protected]> before 15 June 2016. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC >
