[address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin Millnert
millnert at gmail.com
Thu May 26 17:28:21 CEST 2011
Hi Remco, On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I'll try to answer the points you raised below: > > 1. This proposal does not impact transfer at all. Addresses that get > transferred are at no point in that process 'returned to the RIPE NCC'. > > 2. It's not explicitly defined because it all depends on the address space > returned. As I already indicated in another email, the long term effect of > this is likely to be that all /8s managed by the RIPE NCC will have a > minimum allocation size of a /22; and if we then run out of /22s or larger > and need to hand out multiple smaller blocks (moving to clause 4) a few > additional /8s might get *really* unlucky. But that will only happen when > we're scraping the RIPE NCC barrel. > > Best regards, > > Remco > Thank you for the clarification. I'm satisfied with the above, which is what I expected. Thanks! Best regards, Martin
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]