The only provision in the list of 4 items below which I would support is the first one: "These allocation[s] are not transferable" In the case that these addresses are no longer used or needed, they have to be returned to "Last /8" Pool at the RIPE NCC. Number 2 - is a non-starter for me, because it is easily circumvented and difficult to check and to enforce. Number 3 - has already been commented on, as contradicting the model and mode of operation of an LIR. Number 4 - I don't get, neither what the intention is, nor the mechanism to manage that. Wilfried On 2016-05-17 14:05, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received). These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several restrictions:
- These allocation are not transferrable - LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition - Sub-allocations are not possible - Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 15 June 2016.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC