Hello,
I wholeheartedly disagree with this proposal. I believe it lacks proper
foresight for the decades to come.
prop-127 was a deliberate step to reduce the maximum from /22 to /23 to slow
consumption of the remaining 103/8 pool and preserve a meaningful on-ramp for
future networks for as long as possible. Reversing that now undermines the
intent of prop-127 and shifts value away from new entrants and toward existing
members simply because they got here first.
I also think this change creates an obvious "grab it because you can"
incentive. Even if many organisations do not truly need a /22, plenty will take
the upgrade while it is available, and that accelerates depletion of the
remaining pool. Once that runway is consumed it is gone permanently, and the
next wave of networks will have fewer options and a higher barrier to entry.
If there is a real problem to solve here, I would rather see something narrowly
targeted at demonstrable need or specific edge cases, not a broad increase to
the cap that shortens the runway for everyone who comes after us.
TOM
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
