[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02

Thanks for this. Simple and straight forward enough, but I'm not in support
of this proposal.

Section two is redundant and linkage to v6 is perfunctory at best so why
bother codifying at all? I think we get the message with respect to
exhaustion and v6 and further marketing is not necessary.

Allocating each LIR exactly the same sized prefix regardless of _need_ is
pretty unfair sll considered. The addresses could be utilized more
efficiently addressing qualified need instead.

I don't have a better proposal or more interesting suggestion other than
we're probably better off doing nothing than this.


Best Regards,

-M<



On 10/21/10 8:35 AM, "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

> Hello working group,
> 
> The review phase of proposal 2010-02 has ended. During this review phase no
> comments were received. Without any feedback this proposal can't move forward.
> I think that it is important that we, as a working group, decide about what we
> are going to do with the last IPv4 addresses.
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>    http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html
> 
> So: please comment on this proposal.
> 
> Thank you,
> Sander Steffann
> APWG co-chair
>