But the proposal doesn't forbid to open many LIRs and then merge them together. So achieving "one LIR — one /22" is impossible. 23.04.2015, 15:20, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:07:54PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
In my opinion any change to policy should reflect expectation of community as a whole.
"Rough consensus" does not mean *everybody* has to agree.
Current propose doesn't change anything to the direction of improvement for community.
Oh, to the contrary - ensuring that allocations from the last /8 are not burnt like crazy (by permitting arbitrary fast trading) might not be something good for you personally, but for the *rest* of the community, it might be actually a good thing (depending on whether or not you believe in the rationale for the last /8 policy).
The last /8 is not there to do "business as usual, based on IPv4" - it is there to enable *new* market entrants to run a few critical things with IPv4, while the main deployment has to happen on IPv6.
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
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503