-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 16/11/15 10:37, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly oppose this measure.
The NCC’s remaining v4 address space must be carefully conserved to ensure new LIRs in 5, 10, 20 year’s time can get a minimum allocation of IPv4. They will need some v4 space sp can reach IPv4-only equipment on what should be a mostly IPv6 Internet. If we burn through those remaining IPv4 addresses now, that will not be possible. This would be wrong. Very wrong.
Any address policy for the last /8 which says “LIRs can get even more than their one off final /22 of IPv4” undermines that principle.
Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair and unwise.
+1 to all of the above. I am also against this proposal. - -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWSbO9AAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ68MQH/RX5tEccjob1Qata1keZuxGI PM1wTRxauEWH45t1a5/HLgULAm+bl9tBJPwnilky1Dxo8MmEY9JbsTqrpeZ0HLf4 bzijlwt1FYBfY/K9nS8WoaNmsMGS+zHuUT6e5ea9+83y3FuFkPqbP/keQsw2tsN9 uGlAKWti4dysfo7fW2+mJUe0z1uPfA8EPe0Ff1vA2+/38UxHz2JPNOuN9FE1ySPG Ax8sa7S6u4FkBUNUlxyuM6SSH4IBJMkHg0mHfQWqgrJiTlC+lnNfBStPTRCKb36D 1vSc0Q1HG/JtlsfEAq3oYXvxghSSkobPNmsqNlCe2Be9cgB/4exe6a7GwkyqvcA= =15uR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----