Arash,
> On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash Naderpour <[email protected]> wrote: > > Remco, <> > > Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the > discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using > that. > you can't have it both ways - entitle me to my opinion and at the same time saying I'm not allowed to voice it if you don't like it. I stand by what I said, and I can't help being a bit surprised that it took you almost a month to respond to this part of my statement. > > >>. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game > >>recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. > > We have the same situation with the “new-entrants” joined 2012 (before we > reached to last /8) and the ones joined 2 years after that. > > >>The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a > >>remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle > >>about. > > This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in > the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched. > Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more than half, no? Remco
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
