[address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Chris
chrish at consol.net
Tue Apr 3 13:08:28 CEST 2012
On 04/03/2012 12:40 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > there is nothing to understand. well... err, probably right, i guess... ;) > I would assume that many (particularly smaller) LIRs are > not using all the allocated space. ...which means that they do not reach the minimum allocation size - and therefore don't get an allocation? i'll stick with my understanding that this is simply 'what you get anyway' (i.e. handled as 'needed by definition')... > I am not aware of the NCC reclaiming unused parts of any allocation. well then: *surprise* :) > while I don't really care about v4 anymore, I oppose it. to get back to the point, yes, i (obviously) oppose 2012-01, too. regards, Chris
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]