Hello,
I am in favour of the proposal. Similar to Aled's comments below, we are a small entity that is restricted to growth with a single /22. I believe the 185/8 should be restricted to new entrants but allowing recycled/returned address space (outside of the 185/8) to be allocated, providing the LIR has less than a /20 in total. Kind regards, Gavin On 2016-04-14 15:34, Aled Morris wrote: > Peter, > > I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants > into the market to grow. Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's difficult > to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market. We (as an > industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option. > > Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about > recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent > new entrants. > > Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need this > policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs with a fair > mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial allocation. > > Aled > > On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to >> receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the >> simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems >> for new entrants". >> >> -- >> Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
