So that's just a copy and paste of Brendan message ... with your signature on it, it's plagiarism.
Ven 19 déc 2025, à 14:57, TOM via SIG-policy a écrit : > 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] Regards, _________________ Bertrand Cherrier [email protected]
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
