Yes I agree with your proposal Regards, On 22/09/2017 10:21, Carlos Friaças wrote:
Hi,
<2017-03 co-author hat on>
"Access" is not the aim of this policy proposal.
Afaik, there was already a proposal which had some common points with what is described below, and it didn't get anywhere then.
Regards, Carlos Friaças
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, noc@kwaoo.net wrote:
Maybe the right path is to find some way to allocate those addresses to real new entrants only
Perhaps limitations like only one allocation: - per LIR - per legal entity - per physical person - per "network", "activity" or whatever, & based on how you should have your own resources
Anything that can allow the RIPE to say : "nope, you're obviously trying to get more stuff from us, you got your part, we deny this allocation"
This way, the last ressources' purpose will be filled properly, and not scavenged by greedy guys
Regards,
On 22/09/2017 09:04, Carlos Friaças wrote:
This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That will happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for new entrants in this community, by trying to extend the time period until the runout occurs. We cannot "measure" its benefits until the runout occurs, and we can then count how many new entrants did get a tiny portion of (new, never used before) IPv4 address space.
-- Jack Net/sys admin
More details about KWAOO can be found at: https://as24904.kwaoo.net/
-- Jack Kwaoo noc More details about KWAOO can be found at: https://as24904.kwaoo.net/