Dear, all. I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on current resource number and age of the LIR.
E.g. LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent Or First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc. I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good. 2015-10-20 17:46 GMT+03:00 Peter Hessler <[email protected]>: > As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8 > policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it > allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable > IPv4 space. > > While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough > space, I have more sympathy for a business that has zero IP space and > needs one. > > I am against this proposal. > > > [1] Technically, the company had existed for a while with someone else's > IP space, but for practical reasons, the company needed to have an > allocation that belonged to it. > > > On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 16:27:21 +0200 (+0200), Remco van Mook wrote: > : > :Hi all, > : > :(no hats) > : > :I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks > the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is > so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing > themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 > address space. > : > :For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably > won???t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going > to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is > *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at > that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the > foresight that IPv6 won???t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long > as we???re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that > tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. > : > :Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time > could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal > mess. > : > :Remco > : > :* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this > proposal. > :**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your > definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major > migrations to IPv6. > -- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29
