[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jasper Jans
jasper.jans at esprittelecom.nl
Mon Sep 10 14:51:50 CEST 2012
I have to agree with Erik. Jasper -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 2:39 PM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net; Nick Hilliard (nick at inex.ie) Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8) Dear Emilio & Nick, Thanks for the update on the proposal. I would like to state that I'm not in favor of this policy change. Obviously it is very appealing to open up the last /8 also for end-user assignments, even with the additions of limiting only to a /24 max. But I'm afraid that there will be a run on the last possible addresses and that there won't be any IP space left for new LIR's if they require it. ( Do I even dare to state anything about routing table explosion because of it ? ) For me this is a no-go policy change. IPv4 is over in a couple weeks in the RIPE region. Let's move on. Regards, Erik Bais Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.esprittelecom.nl/disclaimer/html
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]