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

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
> 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.

Please do not forget the fact that small LIRs are not *disadvantaged*
by this policy, but actually *advantaged*.

If we didn't have this policy, but just ran out like ARIN did, small 
startup LIRs today would not be able to get *anything*.  Now they can 
get a /22.  Is that enough?  No.  Can we fix it, without taking away
space that *other* small LIRs might want to have, in a few years time?

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160415/b7f13e02/attachment.sig>