Riccardo Gori wrote: > I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier > exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing > it to grow.
It was only a matter of time before someone pulled out the word "fair". "Fair" is a hugely subjective term best left to experts in the field: namely children below the age of 16, all of whom have extraordinary skills in the art of determining what is "fair", and more importantly, what is not. In order to make things better for one section of the RIPE community, another part of the community will need to pay the price. There are several ways of doing this: we could tilt the policy in favour of larger organisations at the cost of smaller organisations, or smaller organisations at the cost of larger organisations, or existing organisations in favour of future market entrants. Currently the ipv4 allocation policy gives precedence to future market entrants and smaller players. This is an unusually altruistic position, given that future market entrants have no say in how current policy is determined. 2015-05 will change this balance further in favour of smaller players at the expense of future market entrants. At a helicopter level and speaking as a smaller LIR, I don't believe that this is a good thing to do and consequently I do not support the policy change. Nick
