Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> writes:

But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes to the IPv4 policy

For what it's worth, the new version suits us just fine. Marking the numbers as non-transferrable should raise the barrier for speculators which seems likely to help the situation. Raising the barrier much higher would put new entrants, particularly in rural areas in conditions of market failure at a serious disadvantage. I would still like to see some requirement to demonstrate that addresses are actually assigned and in use even in the case of mergers though. Best wishes, -w -- William Waites Network Engineer HUBS AS60241