> On 16 Apr 2016, at 16:35, Adrian Pitulac <[email protected]> wrote: > > How on earth did you reach the conclusion that 185/8 will be depleted in 10 > months?
I didn’t. You’re putting words in my mouth. I actually said "This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it.” You’re obsessing about the absolute value of a number in an off-the-cuff rhetorical comment. Whether the free pool gets exhausted in 9 months or 11 months or 10.001 months or 10.002 months as a result of this proposal simply does not matter. It’s clearly going to get wiped out sooner than it would under the current policy. Picking nits over guesses/assumptions about when this event happens makes no difference to the outcome. We still run out of IPv4 sooner than we would with the current policy. That’s the inconvenient truth. Supporters of 2015-05 must address this, excuse the pun. 2015-05 clearly states "Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free pool.”. The object of 2015-05 is to allow further allocations. Therefore it will will speed up the depletion of the free pool. I oppose a policy proposal which has this aim and has no supporting facts to justify taking that course. I’ve listed several reasons for rejecting 2015-05 already and do not need to repeat them. Supporters of this proposal are welcome to present evidence which shows why those reasons are mistaken or wrong. Or why the proposed policy would be better for the RIPE community than the current one. For some definition of better... To date, all that’s been provided is a rag-bag of noise, non-sequiturs and vague references to unsustainable business models. If there’s a sensible or compelling justification to rapidly burn through the last dregs of IPv4, let's hear it.
