On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Working Group, > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:02:43PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> The Discussion Period for the proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation >> Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 June 2016. > > this has been decided by proposers and WG chairs based on your discussion > and the upcoming AP meeting at RIPE72 (next wednesday) - keep the proposal > active until after the discussion there (see below), then decide how to > proceed. > > > From the discussion it was very clear that there is no consensus today > to go ahead - without going into detail, it's clear that there are two > strong factions, one that wants to preserve the remaining /22s for > "as long as possible", while the other one wants to ease the pain for > those LIRs that have too little IPv4 today, willing to incur earlier > total run-out as a consequence.
Since we've supposed to work toward something that can gain consensus I've got a few questions for the authors, and those supporting 2015-05. So far all I've heard, I might have missed something, is that there is a need for more addresses. None have said why, or where there is a need. Why do you need more addresses and for what? Be specific, is it for having more address for the end-users? Datacenter? Services? Infrastructure? IPv6-to-IPv4 services? CGN? Proxyes? -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE [email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected]
