Hi, On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 08:43:45PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > Another "legitimate" case that will no longer be possible was an > argument what was given to me during the discussion of 2015-05: > A company becomes LIR because they need "some provider independent" > space (which today is limited to ALLOCATED PA) which usually equals to > "less than a /24 of actual need, but still a /24 for routing purposes". > They don't really need more than a /24 now and on short/medium term, and > they estimate that they will not need more than a second /24 (size chose > for routing purposes only) even in the longer term. Someone argued that > it would be legitimate and desirable for that LIR to put the remaining > /23 (considered not ever be a need) on the market. Did this became > non-legitimate over-night ?
I would consider this also as a fringe case - legitimate according to the
letter of the policy, but not according to the spirit. These /22s are
not for trading.
But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes
to the IPv4 policy - the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly
irresponsible way regarding *future* participants, while at the same
time complaining that they are treated unfairly by the old LIRs - totally
ignoring the fact that *without the foresight of these old LIRs* you
wouldn't have any space at all today.
This is not the way to do bottom-up policy making - "I want my cookie and
I want it now, and I do not care for the greater good".
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
