(all hats off) If you design your network infrastructure so it requires a /21 to work, when a /22 is all you're likely to get, the problem is not the policy giving you a /22.
And as always, if you don't like a policy, propose a new one yourself. Remco On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53 PM Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: > > One more argument. > > > > For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk > that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs) > > > > But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to > 185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22. > > > > But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. > > There is nothing that you could do with a /21 that you could not do with > 2x /22. Except, maybe, sell it off as a "single /21". > > Next. > > 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 >
