Hi, This policy may actually reduce the depletion rate for last /8, but without it the last /8 can be used more day by day. In the real world, even when a customer needs for example an /24, they need to become an LIR (and get the /22 from the last /8) as their old LIR cannot provide them with additional blocks. That also speed up the depletion of last /8. have you considered these when you made your objection?
This policy is not increasing the demand for IPv4, It creates a possibility for small LIRs to receive additional blocks (not from last /8) based on some conditions, so no change in depletion rate from my point of view. Regards, Arash Naderpour On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Peter Hessler <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2016 May 09 (Mon) at 14:19:43 +0200 (+0200), Riccardo Gori wrote: > :Hi Sander, > : > :Il 09/05/2016 10:42, Sander Steffann ha scritto: > :>Hello Ehsan, > :> > :>>we are agree about the Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal . > :>>https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > :>thank you for expressing your support. However, at this point in the > discussion we have seen enough support but not enough work solving the > objections that have een raised. That is what is needed currently to work > towards consensus. Without addressing those objections this policy proposal > gets stuck. > :Can you please summarize us the main objections about this 2015-05 policy > so > :that people can try to address a solution to those? > > My main objection to this proposal is simple: It depletes the available > pool for _new_ participants faster. I strongly believe any new actor > should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available > from RIPE. For an actor with non-zero addresses to get more addresses, > there is a secondary market. > > Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a > middle ground can be met. Based on my understanding of the other > objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the > objection side. > > I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any > solution can be proposed. > > (note: my stance is based on forming a LIR simply to get any amount of > announcable addresses.) > > -- > Quick!! Act as if nothing has happened! > >
