Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be the only reason that drives our actions.
Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this. Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something he came up with "to increase his profits". Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never happened. The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but make the obvious loophole less attractive. (So the argument "let's burn IPv4 and be done with it!" is also outside the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy, feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279