[rpd] Policy Proposal Update - IPv4 Soft Landing-bis

[Jackson Muthili]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I agree with Andrew here.
>
> Shortchanging more people in order to keep IPv4 space in the free pool
> longer is not helping anyone.

Shortchanging the extra rich companies like Liquid telecom you mean?
Such are the "more people" you talk about here who mostly want the
huge amount of IPv4 now at the detriment of upcoming small players.
Such are the "more people" that can freely gloat about IPv6 deployment
now because their financial resources can allow it. Yet reality is
that IPv4 is still here and our region is still growing. Such large
companies can also afford to buy IPv4 from secondary market at any
cost after exhaustion while the small upcoming ones will struggle
afford this, and you guys outside the region are busy pushing for the
large players to deplete our reserves, in which spirit I wonder?

> Eventually it will be dealt with by virtue
> of the fact that IPv4 simply becomes too
> expensive to maintain. That should have happened a long time a go and all of
> this shifting of costs through policies
> aimed at creating the illusion of conservation has proven to do more harm
> than good every place it has been attempted.

It should have happened a long time ago. It has not yet happened. It
may not happen a long time from now. Who knows?

> If there is a justified need for the resources, then the RIR should
> distribute them accordingly.

A justified need now means any huge company can deplete all IPv4
reserve. It is a very unfair policy at this moment in time when that
reserve is still needed by many others. Is this what you really want
for us?