As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8 policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable IPv4 space.
While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough space, I have more sympathy for a business that has zero IP space and needs one. I am against this proposal. [1] Technically, the company had existed for a while with someone else's IP space, but for practical reasons, the company needed to have an allocation that belonged to it. On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 16:27:21 +0200 (+0200), Remco van Mook wrote: : :Hi all, : :(no hats) : :I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. : :For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won???t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won???t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we???re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. : :Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. : :Remco : :* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. :**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
