[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi.

I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. It helps to go to
IPv6 and the problem of IPv4 is resolved automatically. I don't really
understand why the NCC tries to prolong the life of the dead patient by
means of restrictions such as 2015-01, 2017-03 and others. It seems the NCC
wants to earn money due to the IPs become more expensive.

So I oppose this proposal.


22 Сен 2017 г. 7:50 пользователь "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike at swm.pp.se>
написал:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote:

At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free
>> pool in RIPE's hands?
>>
>
> There’s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/.
>

There is also:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-
ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph

Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on
185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go?

To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see any
need to change anything.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170922/c89011b3/attachment.html>