[address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 16/11/15 10:37, Jim Reid wrote:
> I strongly oppose this measure.
> 
> The NCC’s remaining v4 address space must be carefully conserved
> to ensure new LIRs in 5, 10, 20 year’s time can get a minimum
> allocation of IPv4. They will need some v4 space sp can reach
> IPv4-only equipment on what should be a mostly IPv6 Internet. If we
> burn through those remaining IPv4 addresses now, that will not be 
> possible. This would be wrong. Very wrong.
> 
> Any address policy for the last /8 which says “LIRs can get even
> more than their one off final /22 of IPv4” undermines that
> principle.
> 
> Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves
> off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to
> have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 
> allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing
> the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an 
> IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair 
> and unwise.

+1 to all of the above. I am also against this proposal.

- -- 
Tom Hill
Network Engineer

Bytemark Hosting
http://www.bytemark.co.uk/
tel. +44 1904 890 890
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWSbO9AAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ68MQH/RX5tEccjob1Qata1keZuxGI
PM1wTRxauEWH45t1a5/HLgULAm+bl9tBJPwnilky1Dxo8MmEY9JbsTqrpeZ0HLf4
bzijlwt1FYBfY/K9nS8WoaNmsMGS+zHuUT6e5ea9+83y3FuFkPqbP/keQsw2tsN9
uGlAKWti4dysfo7fW2+mJUe0z1uPfA8EPe0Ff1vA2+/38UxHz2JPNOuN9FE1ySPG
Ax8sa7S6u4FkBUNUlxyuM6SSH4IBJMkHg0mHfQWqgrJiTlC+lnNfBStPTRCKb36D
1vSc0Q1HG/JtlsfEAq3oYXvxghSSkobPNmsqNlCe2Be9cgB/4exe6a7GwkyqvcA=
=15uR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----