On 2015 Sep 14 (Mon) at 10:41:44 +0200 (+0200), Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: :On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 10:03, Tore Anderson wrote: :> > 3. Further allocation(s) (after the first /22) :> None of the above. My preference is to maintain the status quo - no :> additional allocations. I do not quite see why we should change the :> ??last /8?? policy which in my view has been quite successful (except for :> the abuse that 2015-01 hopefully helps shut down). :> :> If it ain't broke, don't fix it? :> :> Unless we interpret ??broke?? to mean ??exhausted??. If so, c'est la vie. : :I take "broken" as "painful and far enough from exhaustion", so in need :of a fix. :Reminder, we are 3 years (precisely) into the "last /8 IPocalypse", and :RIPE still has more than 0.98 of a /8 available (more likely 0.99). :
At my previous company, we joined RIPE as a LIR specifically because there was no other way to get our own IPv4 address space. As a smaller orginazation, we NEEDED to get our own IPv4 space to be multi-homed _and_ to provide serivces to our users. I support the existing policy, and are very concerned with any proposal that would encourage faster exhaustion of the IPv4 space. I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the existing last /8 policy is painful for everyone.e
