> On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:48 PM, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > >> Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >> <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote: >>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're >>> out, ...?" >> >> Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even >> in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land. > > The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants > are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as > "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What > we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" > situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I > think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) > viewpoint...
+1 > > The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this > special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the > results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help > people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give > addresses to new entrants. How much of difference it will make for new entrants with this additional /22, and how much of potential impact by running out faster than we currently is will impact even future new entrants, I guess that are questions we really need to think about an answer. > > But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only > discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances. > > Cheers, > Sander > >
