But the proposal doesn't forbid to open many LIRs and then merge them together.
So achieving "one LIR — one /22" is impossible. 23.04.2015, 15:20, "Gert Doering" <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:07:54PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> In my opinion any change to policy should reflect expectation of community >> as a whole. > > "Rough consensus" does not mean *everybody* has to agree. >> Current propose doesn't change anything to the direction of improvement for >> community. > > Oh, to the contrary - ensuring that allocations from the last /8 are > not burnt like crazy (by permitting arbitrary fast trading) might not > be something good for you personally, but for the *rest* of the community, > it might be actually a good thing (depending on whether or not you > believe in the rationale for the last /8 policy). > > The last /8 is not there to do "business as usual, based on IPv4" - it > is there to enable *new* market entrants to run a few critical things > with IPv4, while the main deployment has to happen on IPv6. > > 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 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
