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

On Sunday 17 April 2016, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

> >> well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8,
> >> policy unless you have a time machine.  but it might mean we won't have
> >> to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which
> >> seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail.
> > Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you
> > can propose a policy regarding v4.
>
> not exactly.  one can propose something in the opposite direction;
> allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24.  it may make ipv4
> last longer for the new entrants.  and a /24 should be sufficient
> for a large nat.
>
> i.e. i was serious the other day.


Well, if you do, make sure take the companion policy with you this time:)
otherwise we might go though the discussion we had this time(distribute it
faster) every year for a very long time:)

P.s.i have no objection to future extend the last /8, but simple economics
suggest it might not work as new member would be effectively be charged at
5 euro/IP/year if they only get /24, and changing member charging scheme
are very difficult and unlikely to happen.  But, it does provide an hassal
free way for small companies get their own IP address for a long time to
come as transfer market are still not that transparent and easy to deal
with.




>
> randy
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160417/467c2972/attachment.html>