Hi, On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 06:39:51PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote:
I know and its ok the currect policy, but everybody should be ok too with what I said. Marco Schmidt, Policy Development Officer, have been in touch with me and told me to see this: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105 http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0006/62763/prop-105-v002.txt
Well, different regions are different, and this hasn't reached consensus in APNIC region yet. We've consciously decided that our last-/8 policy is a "no return" policy, to ensure new entrants in the market can still have *some* IPv4, even if they come in 5 years or 10 years time from now. If you think you can convince the community that we should now go and change it back, well, this is what the policy development process is for - but I don't think the chances are good. Of course everyone wants more IPv4 addresses, but nobody wants anyone *else* to take away those last bits from him... [..]
Should we do a proposal like the APNIC's one? If yes, I would at least set conditions for recieving a new block, and setting the minimun allocation to /24 instead of /22.
I know at least one community member who would violently object to the RIPE NCC hand out /24 allocations, because that would be fairly bad for the global routing table. This time, I would actually agree with him. 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