[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

Thanks Remco, for your clarity

I'm against this proposal too

Regards

Bob Sleigh


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin
Sent: 20 October 2015 15:38
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net; Remco van Mook
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)


Yes, agree. Nice summary.  Not in favor. 

Best, 

Marty

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 15:27, Remco van Mook <remco.vanmook at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> (no hats)
> 
> I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space.
> 
> For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won't make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won't happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we're still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.
> 
> Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.
> 
> Remco
> 
> * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal.
> **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
> 
> 
>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation 
>> Criteria", is now available for discussion.
>> 
>> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional 
>> /22
>> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
>> 
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>> 
>>   https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>> 
>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to 
>> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 18 November 2015.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Marco Schmidt
>> Policy Development Officer
>> RIPE NCC
> 

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose.  
 
We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. 

EE Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Company Registered Number: 02382161
Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.