[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Mon Sep 14 22:22:46 CEST 2009
On 14/09/2009 12:50, "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: [...] > We are talking about PA prefixes here, and this pool is only meant for > initial allocations (PA), not PI. I know. >> The same statistics indicate that about 3,700 prefixes of all >> lengths were >> assigned or allocated last year. I don't think we can assume that >> demand for >> IPv4 address space will reduce and I also think it is reasonable for >> networks that would previously been happy with some PA space from >> their ISP >> to get space direct from the RIPE NCC if it is the only game in town. > > True. There might be organizations that become an LIR to get that > initial /24 allocation. Has any work been done to identify what proportion of those organizations that are normally satisfied with PI or PA assignments are likely to go for a /24 PA "allocation" if that's all there is? I think some data identifying likely outcomes would be useful when making deciding on the prefix length to reserve. Regards, Leo
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]