Hello all, BIDRON Alain ROSI/DAS wrote:
Dear Karsten, When you manage an X-large registry you have several levels of management. In such a situation, meeting the 80% criteria is much more difficult (if possible) than with a small registry with only one level. The proposal is clearly not to advantage or to disadvantage some registries but simply to take into account in fair way different situations in order to have enough flexibility for a better management.
Regarding the support from the community, I have to mention that this proposal was considered by ETNO, whose members representing are a large part of X large registries in the RIPE region, and unanimously supported.
You can find this expression for support at www.etno.be Document EC064.
Just a comment, at least our registry fi.sonera doesn't support this proposal, and we have never posted a supporting message as a registry to ETNO as far as I remember. Second thing, as an XL-registry, at least we haven't encountered any problems with the old policy and I personally think it shouldn't be changed. IPv4 and IPv6 are different species regarding address space and many good comments have already been posted here, so I will not repeat them. Best regards, Kristian Rastas fi.sonera