On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Sylvain Vallerot < [email protected]> wrote: > > These would be correct if applied to End Users, unfortunately your > proposition is applying to LIRs. > > So as I understand it, 2016-03 results in making a LIR's dimension > void, e.g. to assimilate a LIR to an End User. >
Several (and I would say many) LIRs _are_ end users, and the distinction between LIR and end users is not, as far as I have understood past and current policy, not intended to be watertight. In other words, it's fine for a LIR to be an end user, and in principle, it seems sensible that policy acknowledges that, but avoids making unnecessary limitations that interfere with that. > > So I oppose this proposal. > > As I already explained some time ago, a fair "last /8" policy > evolution should tend to apply abuse control on End Users and let > LIRs make an independant job correctly : there is no point in > having LIRs limited in distributing IP ressources to new born ops, > and the new born ops shall not be forced to become LIRs to exists. > This has already happened. There has been a huge amount of new LIRs registered in order to acquire a share of the remaining pool. Your arguments do not seem to be arguments against 2016-03, but against current policy. If you want to change current policy, you should do as the authors of 2015-05 and 2016-03: gather support, make a proposal yourself. Please note that I'm not flagging any preference for or against the policy proposal. I think it's a bit too much like deck chair rearrangement, and my feelings for it are more "meh" than anything else, at least for now. :) -- Jan
