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

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
<ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
<snip>
> If it can get more support, why not ?
> 5 stars, why not ? (actually I have some idea why, and it wouldn't
> bother me)
<snip>

To me it seems like there are a not so minor misunderstanding right
here. It is not so much about getting MORE support, since we do not
vote.

What we do are working toward a overall good solution. Unfortunately
there are no real good solution, our only option is to change
protocol, and with that change some pain will follow which it seems
like you and other are experience. Embrace the future, don't run from
it and avoid facing it, that is my suggestion.


The current policy is there to keep some space in reserve for future
startups so they can have _some_ IPv4 space for whatever reason, it is
NOT there to give current startups enough IPv4 space, that is just not
possible. All pools are either empty or they are running out, and due
to ongoing cleanup we are so lucky that there has been IPv4 space
returned so the runout will take longer, that is we have _some_ IPv4
space longer than we initial thought was possible! Let us not waste
that with being greedy here and now.


The only IPv4 left are what can be found from redistribution or
splitting up of already allocated IPv4 space, that has it's own
ballpark of trouble associated with it, an entire different
discussion.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no