I support this proposal. 1) the intent of the last /8 policy is for new participants to go from 0 to not-0 IPv4 addresses. While not-0 IPv4 addresses may not be enough for a limited number of business cases, it *is* enough to bootstrap a company (e.g. website, dns, email, nat64, etc).
2) When RIPE NCC is unable to allocate a contiguous /22, we are scraping the bottom of the barrel. A single /24 allocation helps the not-0 participants. 3) A /24 is the smallest allocation that is actually usable on the internet. 4) While there is a belief The Internet(tm) should just up and migrate to IPv6, that is unrealistic. E.g. Twitter, Amazon, Reddit, Github, and *many* home/business ISPs around the world do not even IPv6. Whinging about it in policy groups doesn't change that *fact*. Yes, I prefer that people use IPv6. But reality says IPv4 is still important for new participants. On 2019 Feb 04 (Mon) at 13:04:26 +0100 (+0100), Marco Schmidt wrote: :Dear colleagues, : :A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-02, "Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24" :is now available for discussion. : :This proposal aims to reduce the IPv4 allocation size to a /24 once the :RIPE NCC is unable to allocate contiguous /22 ranges. : :You can find the full proposal at: :https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02 : :As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this :four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide :feedback to the proposer. : :At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of :the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. : :We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to :<[email protected]> before 5 March 2019. : :Regards, : :Marco Schmidt :Policy Officer : : -- Bacchus, n.: A convenient deity invented by the ancients as an excuse for getting drunk. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
