On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Jetten Raymond wrote:
Hi,
Hi Raymond,
I strongly oppose this proposal, a similar proposal was mode before, (2017-03) , and I agree with the arguments opposing the proposal.
It's really not the same proposal, although i'm the common link between 2019-02 and 2017-03. Maybe the title could be more explicit about the moment when the proposed changes would kick in. Which specific opposing arguments (to 2019-02) do you agree with? Each one has a written counter-argument/mitigation. Can you please point out which ones do you think are not valid? Best Regards, Carlos
Rgds,
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 4. helmikuuta 2019 14:04 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-02, "Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24" is now available for discussion.
This proposal aims to reduce the IPv4 allocation size to a /24 once the RIPE NCC is unable to allocate contiguous /22 ranges.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 5 March 2019.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Officer