On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 14:47, Jan Ingvoldstad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 12:26 PM Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > C) IPv4 waiting list priority follows the size of existing allocations for >> > the LIR. The lower amount of allocations, starting with zero, the higher >> > the priority. >> >> if the purpose of new allocations is to allow entry, why would an LIR >> with any existing allocation be given more? > > > That would only happen if there are zero new entrants, as an LIR with any > existing allocation would have a lower priority on the waiting list.
If there are no new entrants on the waiting list, the RIPE NCC should just hold on to any address space it has until there is another new entrant. I agree with Randy. The RIPE NCC should not give freely any address space to any organisation that already holds address space in ANY of it's many LIRs. If a company that already holds address space wants more they can buy it on the open market. To avoid new startup shell companies cheating the system, maybe we should go back to the needs based assessment for new startups. cheers denis > > -- > Jan > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
