Hi All,
I oppose this proposal. My reasons, or at least most of them, have
explained by other people during the last week:
- maintaining a lack of incentive for IPv6 deployment ("still have some
IPv4")
- forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already,
and possibility to make things even worse (by creating new pretext for
"longer than /24 in GRT").
I would also add some other reasons:
- community's duty/responsibility for future generations : apart what
it has already been discussed (get v4 on the market, get it from
upstream, or even "really need to get v4 ?"), we are representing here
the RIP*E* community, with limited geographical scope. However, the
policy is quite lax at the moment concerning the out-of-region use of
resources, basically allowing an out-of-region entity to get resources
with a sole promise to use *some* of them in-continent.
- this brings us to the next point : with RIPE region being for the
moment the second-richest RIR (v4-wise) and the lax rules regarding
out-of-region use, I would not like RIPE NCC to become the world's
"last resort" registry for v4 resources (or any other resources for
that matter).
And if I were to agree with the proposal (which is not the case right
now), I would say that some thresholds should be used. Like /10 or /11
available for /23 allocations and /12 available for /24. Under no
circumstance /24 now.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
