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

On 14/04/16 17:01, Jim Reid wrote:
> I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs
> to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so
> there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10?
> 20? 30? years from now.

> IMO this proposal is really about short-term gain for some at the
> expense of others, particularly tomorrow’s new LIRs.

These, for me, are the two most important points yet. 2015-05, like all
previous attempts to change the "last /8" address policy, have ignored them.

If the pro-policy argument is that "IPv6 is taking too long, we need
more IPv4 today" then how are you going to feel in 15 years when you
still need some IPv4, and there isn't any? One could say that you might
be "shooting yourself in the foot" by adopting this policy - especially
if you don't work for the same Company as you do today.

Regards,

-- 
Tom Hill
Network Engineer

Bytemark Hosting
http://www.bytemark.co.uk/
tel. +44 (0) 1904 890 890