Hi Remco,
On 6/16/16 6:39 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Remco van Mook wrote:
I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond
"no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first
version.
Still hate it, kill it!
Explicitly states that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to
all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not
been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA
This is probably useful. It would also probably be useful to define a
term to replace the name "last /8" so that it can be referred to
specifically in the policy documentation, e.g. "the remaining
unallocated ipv4 pool" or something along those lines. Totally not as
catchy as "the last /8", but sadly that is the nature of policy.
while updating this to a form where it would be very clear is something
I applaud, I do not think it is a must.
Adds a consideration to the IPv4 allocation policy that the LIR
should conserve whole or part of their final /22 allocation for
interoperability purposes
Neutral on this. People will do what they are going to do, even if it's
short-sighted.
a good addition, also feeling neutral on telling LIRs what to use the
resources for.
Bans transfers of final /22 allocations
Changes the “status”field in the RIPE Database to reflect the
transferability of an INETNUM
I'm against this because it conflicts with the core purpose of the RIPE
registry, which is to ensure accurate registration of resources.
Formally banning transfers will not stop transfers; it will only stop
those transfers from being registered which will lead to inaccurate
registry information.
could not have said it better. While this is an interesting attempt, it
will only drive _some_ transfers to the underground. Bad idea from my
point of view.
Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since
2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after
the moment of the allocation) will end up with an allocation that is no
longer transferable. I do not like policy proposals that apply
retroactively, you should have thought of this in 2012 before the 'run out'.
Overall, I am against the core proposal, namely banning transfers from
the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool.
+1
Nick
elvis
