Aled,
Let’s stop this being specific to my situation. I’m not arguing against 2015-05 because I work for a large LIR.
I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop. We have a working policy, and we should stick with it.
Anyway, I’ve registered my objection – I’m done with this unless the text changes.
Ian
From: Aled Morris [mailto:aled.w.morris@googlemail.com]
Sent: 14 April 2016 17:00
To: Dickinson, Ian
Cc: Dominik Nowacki; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Ian,
This policy isn't going to change the ability of a large organisation to grown since the amount of space we're talking about is relatively small, and totally trivial to an LIR with (the equivalent of) nearly 700 /22s.
I don't think the policy fails the test of "fairness" simply because larger LIRs won't be getting addresses as the "benefit" of an additional /22 would be marginal for them anyway.
I would hope that large LIRs don't make objections to this proposal just because they don't see any benefit to them - that come come across as selfish.
If we limit the allocation of remaining space to brand new LIRs only, it means that small ISPs in their first growth spurt might be driven to form a second LIR to get that second /22 of space..
I know companies who've done this. It isn't sensible. The proposal makes it possible to achieve the sensible result without resorting to stupid behaviour.
Aled