1) Those requesting addresses for the first time. They will be operating under a regime where they are starting with a clean slate and they will be deploying IPv6 and IPv4 together. Anyone who starts a new business where they plan only to use IPv4 really doesn't understand the realities of the world. 2) Those who have IPv4 space already. And this is the group this proposal is written for. This group has had many years notice that IPv4 is running out and they've still got their heads in the sand. Let's assume we adopt this proposal and we begin to talk about the last /9 provisions. I can envisage a similar proposal appearing just before the last /9 provisions come into force proposing we split the last /9 into two /10 blocks and so on until there really is nothing left. I'd like to see this resource preserved for future use and I don't support changing the current last /8 policy. We can look at this again when the last /8 policy has been operating for some time and relax the limit of a single /22 per entity if we feel that will help with IPv6 deployment but if we adopt this proposal now this now we'll have no reserve capacity to play with.