-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 16/11/15 10:37, Jim Reid wrote: > I strongly oppose this measure. > > The NCC’s remaining v4 address space must be carefully conserved > to ensure new LIRs in 5, 10, 20 year’s time can get a minimum > allocation of IPv4. They will need some v4 space sp can reach > IPv4-only equipment on what should be a mostly IPv6 Internet. If we > burn through those remaining IPv4 addresses now, that will not be > possible. This would be wrong. Very wrong. > > Any address policy for the last /8 which says “LIRs can get even > more than their one off final /22 of IPv4” undermines that > principle. > > Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves > off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to > have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 > allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing > the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an > IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair > and unwise.
+1 to all of the above. I am also against this proposal. - -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWSbO9AAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ68MQH/RX5tEccjob1Qata1keZuxGI PM1wTRxauEWH45t1a5/HLgULAm+bl9tBJPwnilky1Dxo8MmEY9JbsTqrpeZ0HLf4 bzijlwt1FYBfY/K9nS8WoaNmsMGS+zHuUT6e5ea9+83y3FuFkPqbP/keQsw2tsN9 uGlAKWti4dysfo7fW2+mJUe0z1uPfA8EPe0Ff1vA2+/38UxHz2JPNOuN9FE1ySPG Ax8sa7S6u4FkBUNUlxyuM6SSH4IBJMkHg0mHfQWqgrJiTlC+lnNfBStPTRCKb36D 1vSc0Q1HG/JtlsfEAq3oYXvxghSSkobPNmsqNlCe2Be9cgB/4exe6a7GwkyqvcA= =15uR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
