[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:19:04PM +0100, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
>The limitation to only one /22 (from the last /8) per LIR has been 
>approved by this community years ago. Reverting this policy proposal 
>is a discussion that I would like to see in a separate thread and not 
>part of the discussion of this policy proposal.

I didn't argue for a reversal of "last /8", merely against fixing
every "loop-hole" in order to make the ipv4 misery run even longer.

Although, if it is true that NCC has more free space now than it
had when "last /8" came in, this loop-hole seems more of an 
academic concern anyway.

>Can you explain why you tend to oppose so I could try to address your 
>concerns?

I'd like to see ipv6 deployment get some (more) traction while
I'm still alive tbh. And I think that leaving the speculators to
it might accelerate that a lot more than giving out golden stars
for ipv6 deployment or requiring ipv6 allocations (but not their
use) for "last /8" ipv4 allocations. 


rgds,
Sascha Luck