On 14/04/16 17:01, Jim Reid wrote: > I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs > to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources which need to be conserved so > there will be at least some IPv4 space available for new entrants 10? > 20? 30? years from now.
> IMO this proposal is really about short-term gain for some at the > expense of others, particularly tomorrow’s new LIRs. These, for me, are the two most important points yet. 2015-05, like all previous attempts to change the "last /8" address policy, have ignored them. If the pro-policy argument is that "IPv6 is taking too long, we need more IPv4 today" then how are you going to feel in 15 years when you still need some IPv4, and there isn't any? One could say that you might be "shooting yourself in the foot" by adopting this policy - especially if you don't work for the same Company as you do today. Regards, -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 (0) 1904 890 890
