[address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation

Richard Hartmann wrote:

> I see no substantial difference between last-/8 and the returned
> almost-/10. It would be used up within days and we are back to where we are
> today.
> 
> I would still be against any proposal in this direction.

Same here.

It was a conscious decision to *not* go back to whatever different policy after
the last/8-mode kicked in. I still think it was, and is, the right decision.

Although I'm reiterating stuff that was explained already, the reason for my
position is:

- the little excess in addresses in the pool would not really last, i.e. make
  a substantial difference overall,
- fiddling around with erratic or short-term provisions would actually lead to
  less "equality" (for whatever definition) and send the wrong signal to those
  not yet doing IPv6 (old or new),
- thus delaying the deployment of IPv6 even further.

> Again, sorry,
> Richard

Wilfried.