[address-policy-wg] Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Riccardo Gori wrote:
> This proposal aims to address the real need [...]

Nearly everyone has a need for more IP addresses, not just those with
less than /20.  The need that organisations have for more IPv4 addresses
isn't in dispute.  The question is who pays for this need.

2015-05 proposes that we mortgage away the requirements of future market
entrants in order to service the community's need right now.  There are
good reasons why the community should do this and equally - or depending
on your point of view, maybe even better - reasons not to do so.

My personal opinion is that given the problems this will create for
future Internet market entrants, I don't see sufficiently compelling
reasons to change the policy.

I respect the fact that you see things differently.  When you're
scraping the bottom of a barrel, disagreements are bound to happen about
who gets what dregs and when, and these disagreements will continue as
long as there is a single address block remaining in the RIPE NCC IPv4
allocation pool.  One of the few disadvantages with the current policy
that we can all agree on is that it will prolong these disagreements
compared to other policies which favour faster runout.

Nick