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

On 2016 Apr 15 (Fri) at 10:41:56 +0200 (+0200), Gert Doering wrote:
: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


This was exactly what happened to me at a previous job, and I am very
happy that we were able to receive even a small-ish allocation of IPs.


-- 
Hanson's Treatment of Time:
	There are never enough hours in a day, but always too many days
	before Saturday.