On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Sylvain Vallerot <sylvain.vallerot@opdop.net> wrote:

These would be correct if applied to End Users, unfortunately your
proposition is applying to LIRs.

So as I understand it, 2016-03 results in making a LIR's dimension
void, e.g. to assimilate a LIR to an End User.

Several (and I would say many) LIRs _are_ end users, and the distinction between LIR and end users is not, as far as I have understood past and current policy, not intended to be watertight.

In other words, it's fine for a LIR to be an end user, and in principle, it seems sensible that policy acknowledges that, but avoids making unnecessary limitations that interfere with that.

So I oppose this proposal.

As I already explained some time ago, a fair "last /8" policy
evolution should tend to apply abuse control on End Users and let
LIRs make an independant job correctly : there is no point in
having LIRs limited in distributing IP ressources to new born ops,
and the new born ops shall not be forced to become LIRs to exists.

This has already happened. There has been a huge amount of new LIRs registered in order to acquire a share of the remaining pool.

Your arguments do not seem to be arguments against 2016-03, but against current policy.

If you want to change current policy, you should do as the authors of 2015-05 and 2016-03: gather support, make a proposal yourself.

Please note that I'm not flagging any preference for or against the policy proposal. I think it's a bit too much like deck chair rearrangement, and my feelings for it are more "meh" than anything else, at least for now. :)

Jan