Hi Sascha, On 20/02/15 11:37, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:05:53AM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
Limiting entry to 1024 addresses is anti-competitive.
And intentionally running out and limiting entry to 0 addresses is ... ?
Well, you can't sue a shop for having run out of milk to sell...
I do see the point of running out quickly - stretching the ipv4 supply out as long as possible does damn us to this speculation nonsense for decades to come. The question is whether running out quickly will force ipv6 to happen and thus make ipv4 essentially useless as a speculation object. The way I see it, there are conflicting goals here - protect the investment of the big ipv4 players or cause enough pain to force the switch to ipv6 in my lifetime. If it should be the job of the RIRs to promote either goal (and I'm not sure it is) the latter one would be the better outcome for the Internet in the long term. The limitation to only one /22 (from the last /8) per LIR has been approved by this community years ago. Reverting this policy proposal is a discussion that I would like to see in a separate thread and not part of the discussion of this policy proposal.
As for the proposal, I'm "neutral tending towards opposition" pending further argument.
Can you explain why you tend to oppose so I could try to address your concerns?
rgds, Sascha Luck
thanks, elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
