On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 21:10, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > 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.
If we are to "terminate the misery sooner rather than later", while ensuring the fairness, how about allowing for a second /22 under conditions such as: - 2/3/5 years after the first allocation from 185/8 - only for LIRs started after a certain date (??? 09/2012 ???) Does anyone think this makes any sense ? Just as a reminder, no matter how much we push IPv6, as of today (22/02/2015) you need IPv4 if: - you want MPLS in your network (in real-life, MPLS signalling is still v4-only) - want to sell to business customers (which barely give a s*** on v6). > 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 Nope. You (we) need to be more inventive than that.
