Hi Mikael, The last /8 is not really get affected by this policy, - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 Is it the only reason of your objection to this policy? Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: Friday, 15 April 2016 5:46 PM To: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Tore Anderson wrote:
* "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>
On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Jim Reid wrote:
I strongly disagree with the proposal
what Jim said, which you don't need to see again. Well said, Jim.
+1
I agree with people above, I want to keep the last /8 for new future entrants with current policy, not deplete quicker. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se