[address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 10:51, Peter Hessler wrote:

> At my previous company, we joined RIPE as a LIR specifically because
> there was no other way to get our own IPv4 address space.  As a smaller
> orginazation, we NEEDED to get our own IPv4 space to be multi-homed _and_
> to provide serivces to our users.

This is pretty much the situation at my present company.

> I support the existing policy, and are very concerned with any proposal
> that would encourage faster exhaustion of the IPv4 space.
> 
> I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the existing last /8
> policy is painful for everyone.e

It depends : if you need more than a /22 it is (very) painful, if you
don't - it's not.
And don't forget that some people are still arguing that the last /8
policy is to be used as a workaround until IPv6 becomes a useful option.
Unfortunately, with the current stocks of available addresses, for a lot
of people it doesn't work this way.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs