Yes I agree with your proposal
Regards, On 22/09/2017 10:21, Carlos Friaças wrote: > > Hi, > > <2017-03 co-author hat on> > > "Access" is not the aim of this policy proposal. > > Afaik, there was already a proposal which had some common points with > what is described below, and it didn't get anywhere then. > > Regards, > Carlos Friaças > > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, [email protected] wrote: > >> Maybe the right path is to find some way to allocate those addresses to >> real new entrants only >> >> Perhaps limitations like only one allocation: >> - per LIR >> - per legal entity >> - per physical person >> - per "network", "activity" or whatever, & based on how you should have >> your own resources >> >> Anything that can allow the RIPE to say : "nope, you're obviously trying >> to get more stuff from us, you got your part, we deny this allocation" >> >> This way, the last ressources' purpose will be filled properly, and not >> scavenged by greedy guys >> >> Regards, >> >> On 22/09/2017 09:04, Carlos Friaças wrote: >>> This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That will >>> happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for new >>> entrants in this community, by trying to extend the time period until >>> the runout occurs. We cannot "measure" its benefits until the runout >>> occurs, and we can then count how many new entrants did get a tiny >>> portion of (new, never used before) IPv4 address space. >> >> -- >> Jack >> Net/sys admin >> >> More details about KWAOO can be found at: >> https://as24904.kwaoo.net/ >> -- Jack Kwaoo noc More details about KWAOO can be found at: https://as24904.kwaoo.net/
