On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Alexey Galaev <[email protected]> wrote:
> I’m inclined to disagree with proposal I used to see and I have a > different take on it. > > We have the main problem: there are no IPv4 address space for all. This > proposal just take privilege to old LIR's and limit in rights all new > LIR's. But this does not solve the problem. We need to use IPv4 more > effectively and stimulate to use IPv6. Why can't we add some payment for > ALL current IPv4 blocks? Because this group decides address policy, not membership fees. > For example, 0.5$/year for IP. All unusable IPv4 will be returned as > unprofitable. What the difference between unused space from last /8 and > unused space from first /8? The difference is that there is no "unused space from first /8". > And what the differnce between old and new LIR's? > The difference appears to be that the old LIRs wanted new LIRs to have a chance to exist, while new LIRs do not want new LIRs to exist. -- Jan
