(all hats off)

If you design your network infrastructure so it requires a /21 to work, when a /22 is all you're likely to get, the problem is not the policy giving you a /22.

And as always, if you don't like a policy, propose a new one yourself.

Remco

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
> One more argument.
>
> For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs)
>
> But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to 185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22.
>
> But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved.

There is nothing that you could do with a /21 that you could not do with
2x /22. Except, maybe, sell it off as a "single /21".

Next.

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279