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> 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-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph

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