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

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

> Tough.
>
> If you choose that approach to kludging around your IPv4 problems, the
> consequences of that decision are yours alone. There are other ways of
> making “better” use of your remaining IPv4 address space. Though they are
> also ugly. Get over it. Sorry.
>

Yup.


>
> Your argument seems to be “I want to plunder the remaining IPv4 at the NCC
> because I don’t want to buy addreses on the secondary market”. Well, that’s
> simply not a good enough reason to change the current policy. That approach
> may well be good for you and your business but it’s not good for the
> community as a whole. Tragedy of the commons and all that…
>
>
I think the lukewarm reception to my thought experiment also shows that the
agenda isn't about solving any real problems with the restrictions under
the last /8 policy, but actually _is_ about plundering the remaining IPv4
space.

It's therefore been a bit amusing and sad to see how this proposal is so
eagerly supported by some of the list participants.

Well, I cannot say that I've been swayed away from opposing the proposal.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151117/4422bf0c/attachment.html>