<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><a name="_MailEndCompose">Remco,<o:p></o:p></a><o:p> </o:p>Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using that.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p>>>. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>We have the same situation with the “new-entrants” joined 2012 (before we reached to last /8) and the ones joined 2 years after that. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>>>The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Cheers,<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Arash Naderpour<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p>From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of remco van mook Sent: Friday, 15 April 2016 8:50 AM To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>Dear colleagues,<o:p></o:p><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. <o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal. <o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>Remco<o:p></o:p></div><div>(no hats)<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p><div><div>On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM Marco Schmidt <<a href="mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net">mschmidt@ripe.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'>Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request You can find the full proposal at: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05</a> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC<o:p></o:p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></body></html>