I think that perhaps we should all read the latest draft of the RFC2050 update: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 1) Allocation Pool Management: Due to the fixed lengths of IP addresses and AS numbers, the pools from which these resources are allocated are finite. As such, allocations must be made in accordance with the operational needs of those running the networks that make use of these number resources and by taking into consideration pool limitations at the time of allocation. This proposal seems counter to the above, as well as in conflict with 2050 itself. I note the author has tried to provide counter arguments, but to me they are not sufficient to persuade me to support this proposal. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-582, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 16 April 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC