[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 3:16 PM Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml at uu.org> wrote:

> On 06.02.2019 14:36, garry at nethinks.com wrote:
> >> […] I'd
> >> rather hand that /21 as two /22 to two new LIRs instead of eight /24
> >> to eight new LIRs, since a /24 is basically useless anyway. Especially
> >> if you have to wait 6 or more months for it. (Of course, /22 (in up to
> >> /24 slices) will mean a much longer waiting time, which makes  IPv6
> >> just more interessting. Or IPv4 brokers.)
> > Why is a /24 useless?
>
> Sorry for beeing too brief here: From my perspective, becoming an LIR
> implies the intend to provide service a lot of customers, and I don't
> see how a single /24 would suffice there. That's what I meant with
> "basically useless" (from a business point of view).
>

In that case, IPv4 is "basically useless" from a business point of view.

But that statement is provably false.

Additionally, a lot of business is about providing services that are *not*
connectivity-based, to a lot of customers.

Additionally, a lot of connectivity services can be provided via NAT.

And so on.

This line of argument is not fruitful, sorry. Please abandon it.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190206/0cd42654/attachment.html>