Dear all, maybe it would be clearer for everyone if instead of "new installations" we say "new (IP) allocations", because that's more along the lines we were thinking. The idea is not to force old installations to reinvent themselves due to a policy change, rather to make more efficient use of address space in the future, based on currently available technology. Also the list of exceptions is up for discussion, SSL was an initial kick-off example but it is ultimately the ISPs that have to agree on the list. We'll be happy to assemble the list and will propose all applications we see ourselves as needing IP based hosting, but it would be impossible for us to come up with a complete list of all the imaginative applications of technology that ISPs are using. Also I don't think such a list would have to be "set in stone" as, fortunately, the Internet is constantly evolving. We look forward to a discussion on the list and next week at the RIPE meeting. Joao Damas Head of External Services RIPE NCC