[address-policy-wg] 2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Wed Oct 4 16:52:51 CEST 2006
Hi, Gert Doering wrote: > HI, > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: >> This proposal is to have the RIPE NCC allocate address space to >> Local Internet Registries (LIRs) based on their one-year needs. In >> other words, it suggests setting a maximum allocation period of 12 >> months. > > I agree with Jeroen - the subject is a bit misleading, and the wording > of the summary could also be a bit more clearer. > > Regarding the proposal itself, playing the devil's advocate, I'm not > sure why we want that - "the other registries are changing their > policies so their members have a disadvantage now -- let's make life > more difficult for our members as well?". Global harmonization is > nice, but as the *main* argument for a change that's reducing people's > freedom in planning, I'm always a bit sceptical... i'm with you and your arguments here. Especially since the policies of the other RIRs are all different from each other, and there's only a similiar proposal to harmonise it in one of them. > To better judge the impact on address fragmentation (and speaking > from a LIR's perspective, having too many different allocations *is* > a nuisance - think "reverse DNS", "routing announcements", etc), I'd > like to see some numbers what impact in terms of "how many LIRs would > have received multiple blocks instead of a single contiguous block?" > if the allocation time frame would have changed to "1 year" something > like 5 years ago... According to "b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal", the impact is minimal compared to other DFZ-bloating issues, but i don't have any numbers on it myself. Additionally, i still see no real reason to conserve IPv4 address space, my inofficial point of view is: waste IPv4 addresses so we can go with IPv6 :) All in all, i don't support this proposal at the moment. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]