<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/02/2024 02:14, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EC946349-39F6-43DC-9698-8D9DD7206613@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<clip>
<div>
<div>Yes, YOU made those decisions for YOUR network. Now you are
trying to force those decisions (specifically deployment of
CGNAT) onto others through policy. No sale here.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, these decisions are made taking into account the reality of the
things, or do you think it is fine to completely disregard the IPv4
exhaustion and keep assigning scarce IPv4 resources from the waiting
list in total luxury to those who are able to go to the market and
transfer more addresses in other to fulfill their decision to not do
CGNAT ? Do you think there is any fairness on this ? Or even forcing
this method to make the waiting list more difficult to those who
need even more as a way to force - who knows who - to deploy IPv6 ?<br>
<p>I cannot agree there is reasonableness in keep allowing
organizations who already have any size of allocation to receive
in whatever is left for the waiting list if they have more
conditions to transfer further IPv4 space should they require.
This is the fairness which is sought in the policy development
process.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EC946349-39F6-43DC-9698-8D9DD7206613@delong.com">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Owen</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>