As young ISP, I totally agree with Aled. This solves lot of problem for us.
Il 14/04/2016 16:34, Aled Morris ha scritto:
Peter,
I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent
entrants into the market to grow. Speaking on behalf of such an
entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in
today's market. We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this
to be the only option.
Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really
about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot
of recent new entrants.
Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need
this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs
with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial
allocation.
Aled
On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is
eligable to
receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the
simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes
problems
for new entrants".
--
Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
--
Saverio Giuntini
Servereasy di Giuntini Saverio
Amministrazione e system manager
