+1 My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably without proper justification] I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst and he declined our request although we had proved that our need was even more than what we submitted in our application, and eventually the block which he approved was less than what we requested. And at those time, some other western LIRs got their IP blocks.
These days we are trying to buy new IP blocks, and those LIRs are selling! That funny story is the real story! While the proposed policy looks very rational, but it is not going to solve the issue! The demand is there so the market will find a way to satisfy the demand! If I were the gentleman who proposed this policy, I would have proposed another policy to push the LIRs who had not used their IPs (or pretending to use that) in favor of LIRs in the developing countries who really can't serve new customers due to lack of IP space. we should not close our eyes on the approvals which were given to LIRs who got plenty of IPs, and they were supposed to use all the IPs within two years following the allocation, and still they have a lot of un-assigned (and even un-advertised!) ones! On 2016-06-17 02:58:20 CET, Arash Naderpour wrote: > >I find this inconsistent. Either we do it for *ALL* allocations (including > the ones allocated prior to the 2012/09 ipocalipse), effectively banning or > heavily >restricting transfers, or we keep it the way it is today, i.e. for > *NO* allocations. > > Not sure why returning some /22 to RIPE NCC free pool can save the > new-comers but other allocations prior 2012 cannot. If returning an > allocation is something visible it should be for all allocations not only to > the smallest ones, it is not fair. > > Regards, > > Arash > > > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
