[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

As young ISP, I totally agree with Aled. This solves lot of problem for us.

Il 14/04/2016 16:34, Aled Morris ha scritto:
> Peter,
>
> I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent 
> entrants into the market to grow.  Speaking on behalf of such an 
> entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in 
> today's market.  We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this 
> to be the only option.
>
> Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really 
> about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot 
> of recent new entrants.
>
> Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need 
> this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs 
> with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial 
> allocation.
> Aled
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <phessler at theapt.org 
> <mailto:phessler at theapt.org>> wrote:
>
>     While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is
>     eligable to
>     receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the
>     simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes
>     problems
>     for new entrants".
>
>
>     --
>     Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
>
>

-- 
Saverio Giuntini
Servereasy di Giuntini Saverio
Amministrazione e system manager

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160414/cbee5da2/attachment.html>