Riccardo Gori wrote: > This proposal aims to address the real need [...]
Nearly everyone has a need for more IP addresses, not just those with less than /20. The need that organisations have for more IPv4 addresses isn't in dispute. The question is who pays for this need. 2015-05 proposes that we mortgage away the requirements of future market entrants in order to service the community's need right now. There are good reasons why the community should do this and equally - or depending on your point of view, maybe even better - reasons not to do so. My personal opinion is that given the problems this will create for future Internet market entrants, I don't see sufficiently compelling reasons to change the policy. I respect the fact that you see things differently. When you're scraping the bottom of a barrel, disagreements are bound to happen about who gets what dregs and when, and these disagreements will continue as long as there is a single address block remaining in the RIPE NCC IPv4 allocation pool. One of the few disadvantages with the current policy that we can all agree on is that it will prolong these disagreements compared to other policies which favour faster runout. Nick
