Hello Sander, I don't agree with Jim to wait with the policy for the final /8 (if it ever comes) until IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. Use a minimum allocation size of /24 is a good thing. A maximum allocation size for a LIR could be a /22 per time they ask for IP addresses, a case-by-case limit is something I won't support. Make exceptions if it is impossible to downscale, if it is hard to downscale (but possible) it should be no exception. To see if it is possible to downscale is something the LIR and the RIPE NCC should (not) agree on, if they don't agree the decision the RIPE NCC did make should be followed. The LIR on the other hand could ask the RIPE NCC why they think/know it is possible to downscale. Services/access that is possible via IPv4 addresses in the last /8 should also be useable via IPv6. If that is not possible internal IPv4 addresses should be used if you ask me. Regards, Mark Scholten -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: zaterdag 5 september 2009 16:09 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2 Hello again, After my last questions I have only received concrete answers from Michael. He suggested the following: - Use a minimum allocation size of /24 - Determine the maximum allocation size for every LIR based on their run rate - Make no exceptions for cases where it is hard or impossible to downscale Jim asked why we should change the policy at all for the final /8. I hope I have given at least one good reason: new entrants. Michael proposed to leave (further) decisions about the final /8 until IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. Does this represent the view of the community? I am not sure if people keep quiet because they agree with what has already been said, or because they are still on vacation... Please let us know :) Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair