Hi Mikael, The last /8 is not really get affected by this policy,
- Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 Is it the only reason of your objection to this policy? Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: Friday, 15 April 2016 5:46 PM To: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Tore Anderson wrote: > * "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.orei...@ucd.ie> > >> On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote: >> >>> I strongly disagree with the proposal >> >> what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. >> Well said, Jim. > > +1 I agree with people above, I want to keep the last /8 for new future entrants with current policy, not deplete quicker. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
