> 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 . 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.