[address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio policy proposal

Hello all,

BIDRON Alain ROSI/DAS wrote:
> Dear Karsten, 
> When you manage an X-large registry you have several levels of management.
> In such a situation, meeting the 80% criteria is much more difficult (if possible) than with a small registry with only one level.
> The proposal is clearly not to advantage or to disadvantage some registries but simply to take into account in fair way different situations in order to have enough flexibility for a better management.
> 
> Regarding the support from the community, I have to mention that this proposal was considered by ETNO, whose members representing are  a large part of X large registries in the RIPE region, and unanimously supported.
> 
> You can find this expression for support at 
> www.etno.be  Document EC064.

Just a comment, at least our registry fi.sonera doesn't support this proposal, and we have 
never posted a supporting message as a registry to ETNO as far as I remember.

Second thing, as an XL-registry, at least we haven't encountered any problems with the old 
policy and I personally think it shouldn't be changed. IPv4 and IPv6 are different species
regarding address space and many good comments have already been posted here, so I will 
not repeat them.

Best regards,

Kristian Rastas
fi.sonera