Sylvain,

I wasnt lecturing, just outlining my postion,

the point of the policy is that is is a form of reprieve to allocate more Ipv4 resources to Lirs, and I think that any Lir as I have said before that have benefited from merging with another lir to get Ip address space to assign to end users or other wise, shouldnt be allowed to benefit from this policy.

I hope in this context you understand my position

Thanks

Tom Smyth

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Sylvain Vallerot <sylvain.vallerot@opdop.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 23/10/2015 16:51, Tom Smyth wrote:
> The policy is centered around LIRs

Which is the basis of your further deductions, but I disagree with this
first statement. I do not means it is not the case, nor deeply understood
as this, I just disagree on the relevance of this lecture regarding to
the spirit and goal of the last /8 policy.

LIRs are delegated some authority from the RIR (that is delegated authority
from ARIN), LIRs are not those who are supposed to use the ressources in
the End. So distribution of ressources to LIRs is a wrong perspective, the
goal being to have ressources available to End Users, the last /8 that limits
available ressources to a /22 per LIR would be better deserving their goal
by fixing some ressource quantity to be available to End Users. Of course,
this is difficult to do, and most participants here seem not to consider
the difference between LIR and operator/end user.

So according to the last /8 policy goal (spirit if not letter), LIRs
merging to get End Users to be able to access some little ressources is
perfectly legitimate.

We as a cooperative LIR do no use ressources for ourselves, but for End Users
only, so as a LIR, being limited to a /22 is not relevant to us, because it
just has the effect to limit the number of End Users that can have access to
a minimal part of the IPv4 last bits to bootstrap. Is it the goal of this
policy ? No it is not.

So to allow new comers to emerge (with a single /24 sometimes) the only
possible way today is (several of) them to create a new LIR together and
later merge it to ours. And this does perfect sense if last /8 policy is
there to allow newcomers to emerge.

You thinking as LIR = End User having a /22 means a /22 per newcomer. When
you have in mind that a /22 is a potential of 4 x /24 end users instead,
then you deserve the last /8 policy 4 times as much.

Maybe limiting the M&A to PAs containing space already assigned to enough
independent (maybe even routable, with an ASN ?) operators, and garanteed to
remain so for quite a long time) would be fine.

Best regards,
Sylvain

- --
http://www.opdop.fr  -  mutualiser et interconnecter en coopérative
Opdop - Société Coopérative d'Interêt Collectif sous forme de SARL
sur IRC réseau geeknode #opdop - tél: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlYqUq0ACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGnowEAkJ9DTr65tpRap+4tTLTfO+jK
2wXLItRWhxFWnw2t3U4A/j6d7Hb3nJKSQN72lSGCsEHq0QSxSFSIXPL9KvxGbIo8
=N+ff
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



--
Kindest regards,
Tom Smyth

Mobile: +353 87 6193172
---------------------------------
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL
This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's  .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in
writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.