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

Hi Mikael,

The last /8 is not really get affected by this policy, 

- Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space
outside 185/8

Is it the only reason of your objection to this policy? 

Regards,

Arash Naderpour




-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Friday, 15 April 2016 5:46 PM
To: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13
May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Tore Anderson wrote:

> * "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie>
>
>> On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote:
>>
>>> I strongly disagree with the proposal
>>
>>   what Jim said, which you don't need to see again.
>>   Well said, Jim.
>
> +1

I agree with people above, I want to keep the last /8 for new future
entrants with current policy, not deplete quicker.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se