Hi, On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:19:45AM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
Finally Gert seems to get my point with his example of someone going through the effort of opening 5000 new LIRs. I am not saying this will happen but even someone going to through the effort of opening maybe 2 or three just to get more address space for the wrong reasons should be telling us something that our policy is missing some core notion, that notion being IP addresses are mainly there to be used on networks as soon as they leave an RIR pool.
2013-03 would not be changing that particular game. If someone wants to open extra LIRs to get extra /22s, they can do that today, and they can do that if 2013-03 is implemented. Needs justification for the /22 is already so minimal ("I need a single IPv4 address") that I can't really see how 2013-03 would make a big for these cases. If you're concerned about people gaming the system by opening extra LIRs and getting extra /22s that they should not have, opposing 2013-03 is not the right approach - we'd need a modification of the actual last /8 policy to qualify under which rules "new LIRs" might *not* be eligible to get a /22 - and I think *this* would cause much more grave problems with competition laws. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279