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

On 17/04/16 05:50, Randy Bush 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.
>
> randy
>

I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real 
argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just 
"keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that?