Thanks Remco, for your clarity I'm against this proposal too
Regards Bob Sleigh -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: 20 October 2015 15:38 To: [email protected]; Remco van Mook Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Yes, agree. Nice summary. Not in favor. Best, Marty > On Oct 20, 2015, at 15:27, Remco van Mook <[email protected]> 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. > > >> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation >> Criteria", is now available for discussion. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional >> /22 >> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> <[email protected]> before 18 November 2015. >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC > NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s). If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose. We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. EE Limited Registered in England and Wales Company Registered Number: 02382161 Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.
