On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote:
I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain system can handle it with some minor tuning.
Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests could be used for "questionable"requests. (IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board)
way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place for this discussion).
Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend.
We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed as a requirement.
hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6.
Or we could request that new LIR show that they actual are doing business as in showing an approved accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing business before they can get IPv4.
Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources for private use and long may it be possible.
This will however actual exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, but, really, I don't care much about that problem.
Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE Service Region? Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two continents...
term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC.
Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the process. rgds, Sascha Luck