Re: [sig-policy] prop-093: Reducing the minimum delegation size for the
> being specified as grounds for a /24 unless it's explicitly associated
> with either Internet Exchange Points or Critical infrastructure - my
> concern being that I wouldn't want to encourage requests from "hobby"
> or non-professional networks for a /24 from the final /8 policy simply
> because they met a multihoming criteria, and I don't think that's the
> intent of the proposal.
you are hereby sentenced to spend the next two weeks defining hobby and
non-professional sufficiently rigorously that hostmasters can trivially
test. :)
and what is wrong with amateur radio anyway?
new sites needing to multi-home in a dual-stack backbone world, but who
want to have their site be v6-only or dual-stack, will need a bit of
ipv4 to front onto the net [0]. it is not mine to judge whether some
site is worthy of being on the net or not. and i suspect that apnic and
the nirs may not want to explain in court or at igf or itu why people
with blue eyes can not enter the internet game.
randy
0 - fwiw, i personally strongly suspect that we'll be routing /27s for
such folk in a few years, whether i like it or not.