<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <blockquote cite="mid:634EA038-17E7-413D-A70A-0B77CDF42173@rfc1035.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On 16 Apr 2016, at 13:48, Adrian Pitulac <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:adrian@idsys.ro"><adrian@idsys.ro></a> wrote: Will the 185/8 going to being depleted by new LIRs in 10 months? I'm I missing something? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Yes. Allocations from 185/8 wouldn’t just go to new LIRs. And besides it’s not just allocations from that /8 that would be affected by this proposal. As Remco has already pointed out, the final /8 policy "was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion." </pre> </blockquote> I thought I've missed something when you wrote that and I've re-read the policy change proposal. To me it "1. The size of the allocation made from 185/8 will be exactly one /22." this sounds like allocations from 185/8 will be as till now. Then " 3.2. There is enough space in the free pool outside the 185/8 block to perform the allocation." CLEARLY STATES 185/8 won't be used for the subsequent allocations. How on earth did you reach the conclusion that 185/8 will be depleted in 10 months? <blockquote cite="mid:634EA038-17E7-413D-A70A-0B77CDF42173@rfc1035.com" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Have you really read the policy change, or are you against any policy change by default? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I support policy proposals which are sensible and benefit the community. (Same thing really.) 2015-05 does not do that. I have read the policy change and thought about its implications. I suggest you look at the first two bullet points listed under "Arguments opposing the proposal”. These are two of the main reasons why this proposal has to be rejected. The first one is a show-stopper. It’s more than enough reason to kill this proposal.</pre> </blockquote> Yes. I've read it (now twice) and it seems to me you are missing small points in it. "Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free pool. If every member holding less than a total of /20 addresses would submit a request for a new /22 allocation every 18 months, the recovered pool could be depleted in 2-3 years from now." From what I see they are talking about recovered IANA pool space. So I don't see a problem if that's going to be used in 2-3 years, considering 185/8 will remain for future new LIR's, as intended from the start. </body> </html>