On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:19:04PM +0100, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
The limitation to only one /22 (from the last /8) per LIR has been
approved by this community years ago. Reverting this policy proposal
is a discussion that I would like to see in a separate thread and not
part of the discussion of this policy proposal.
I didn't argue for a reversal of "last /8", merely against fixing
every "loop-hole" in order to make the ipv4 misery run even longer.
Although, if it is true that NCC has more free space now than it
had when "last /8" came in, this loop-hole seems more of an
academic concern anyway.
Can you explain why you tend to oppose so I could try to address your
concerns?
I'd like to see ipv6 deployment get some (more) traction while
I'm still alive tbh. And I think that leaving the speculators to
it might accelerate that a lot more than giving out golden stars
for ipv6 deployment or requiring ipv6 allocations (but not their
use) for "last /8" ipv4 allocations.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
