> On 22 Sep 2017, at 08:58, [email protected] wrote: > > Maybe the right path is to find some way to allocate those addresses to > real new entrants only
Come up with a viable definition “new real entrant”. It’s not as easy as you seem to think it is. > 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 Now consider how that can be policed. How much is that going to cost? Will the NCC have to buy a DNA sequencer and demand samples from anyone wanting address space? [And what about identical twins?] BTW every LIR is a legal entity and can only get exactly one v4 allocation under the current policy. > 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 should already be happening. Though there may well be unscrupulous people who look for and maybe find ways to manipulate the system. No IPv4 allocation policy is perfect or foolproof. The one we’ve got is good enough. It doesn’t need fixing.
