Hello Aleksey, Please read : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board It is NOT the NCC who makes proposals, it’s the community who makes proposals (anyone interested), and the members together with the board and the budget of the NCC , who decide on pricing. Rgds, Ray From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Aleksey Bulgakov Sent: 22. syyskuuta 2017 8:42 To: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space) Hi. I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. It helps to go to IPv6 and the problem of IPv4 is resolved automatically. I don't really understand why the NCC tries to prolong the life of the dead patient by means of restrictions such as 2015-01, 2017-03 and others. It seems the NCC wants to earn money due to the IPs become more expensive. So I oppose this proposal. 22 Сен 2017 г. 7:50 пользователь "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se<mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se>> написал: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote: At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free pool in RIPE's hands? There’s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. There is also: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio... Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go? To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see any need to change anything. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se<mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se>