Hello,
I've read the proposal and arguments for and against and indeed all the various different opinions presented. Although I can see some merit to support the proposal from a needs based perspective and use of reclaimed addresses. Personally I cannot however ignore the fact that new LIR's into the future will need IPv4 to implement IPv6 based solutions of whatever flavour, and therefore I cannot support this policy change as I believe the current policy is fit for purpose.
To confirm I do not support this policy proposal. Kind Regards, Guy On 14/04/2016 13:41, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <[email protected]>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
