Hi All, I oppose this proposal. My reasons, or at least most of them, have explained by other people during the last week: - maintaining a lack of incentive for IPv6 deployment ("still have some IPv4") - forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already, and possibility to make things even worse (by creating new pretext for "longer than /24 in GRT"). I would also add some other reasons: - community's duty/responsibility for future generations : apart what it has already been discussed (get v4 on the market, get it from upstream, or even "really need to get v4 ?"), we are representing here the RIP*E* community, with limited geographical scope. However, the policy is quite lax at the moment concerning the out-of-region use of resources, basically allowing an out-of-region entity to get resources with a sole promise to use *some* of them in-continent. - this brings us to the next point : with RIPE region being for the moment the second-richest RIR (v4-wise) and the lax rules regarding out-of-region use, I would not like RIPE NCC to become the world's "last resort" registry for v4 resources (or any other resources for that matter). And if I were to agree with the proposal (which is not the case right now), I would say that some thresholds should be used. Like /10 or /11 available for /23 allocations and /12 available for /24. Under no circumstance /24 now. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN