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

Sorry Ian I wasn't being personal but I do think the proposal benefits
small LIRs and I have a vested interest in that regard.

The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6"
which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against
proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged
against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on.  It
simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition.

Aled

On 14 April 2016 at 17:17, Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk> wrote:

> Aled,
>
>
>
> Let’s stop this being specific to my situation. I’m not arguing against
> 2015-05 because I work for a large LIR.
>
>
>
> I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop. We
> have a working policy, and we should stick with it.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I’ve registered my objection – I’m done with this unless the text
> changes.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> *From:* Aled Morris [mailto:aled.w.morris at googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* 14 April 2016 17:00
> *To:* Dickinson, Ian
> *Cc:* Dominik Nowacki; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended
> until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
>
>
>
> Ian,
>
>
>
> This policy isn't going to change the ability of a large organisation to
> grown since the amount of space we're talking about is relatively small,
> and totally trivial to an LIR with (the equivalent of) nearly 700 /22s.
>
>
>
> I don't think the policy fails the test of "fairness" simply because
> larger LIRs won't be getting addresses as the "benefit" of an additional
> /22 would be marginal for them anyway.
>
>
>
> I would hope that large LIRs don't make objections to this proposal just
> because they don't see any benefit to them - that come come across as
> selfish.
>
>
>
> If we limit the allocation of remaining space to brand new LIRs only, it
> means that small ISPs in their first growth spurt might be driven to form a
> second LIR to get that second /22 of space..
>
>
>
> I know companies who've done this.  It isn't sensible.  The proposal makes
> it possible to achieve the sensible result without resorting to stupid
> behaviour.
>
>
>
> Aled
>
>
> Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged,
> confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views
> expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the
> originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by
> return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce,
> distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone.
> Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication
> through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are
> trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
> Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited
> (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited
> (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc
> (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this
> paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same
> registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160414/818efc9f/attachment.html>