[address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dmitriy Zemlyanoy
dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua
Tue Oct 29 21:18:40 CET 2013
Exactly. I also think that current (disallowing) transfer practice for block /22 (and larger) - is an artificial problem. I think there is no problem to allow transfer PI->PA for blocks /22 (and larger) right now. And after that we can continue discussing about blocks less then /22. It seems that question about transfering blocks less then /22 is not easy, but there is no question for blocks /22 (and large). Delaying this for discussing question about blocks less then /22 - we making situation more and more hard each day. Agiotage around IPv4 is growing each day. So, let's make some cool down of situation - let's allow transfer /22 (and larger) right now and leave the question of less then /22 for discussion. It will improve situation right now and give us some time to discuss about blocks less then /22 -- Dmitriy Zemlyanoy. DeltaHost. http://deltahost.com ksyu at netassist.ua писал 2013-10-29 20:47: > Hi to everybody > > I don't understand what is the problem to return the possibility to > turn PI to PA? If it was somedays = that means that is possible. > What troubles RIPE are expecting to see - if they are still oscillate > with the solution? > > IPv6 unfortunately is not using as It was expecting to be in use. > Good if 5% of providers are using IPv6. > > Now almost all are still using IPv4. > > The principles in this policy generates a lot of troubles. Some people > are starting to steal or use somebodies networks illegally. Don't > close your eyes. You know how they can do this. > > What should all other companies do if they can't get their own > addresses? They will ask for rent. But the price now is too high. And > will not go down if something will not changes. > > As I see the solution to soften the migration from v4 to v6 - this > solution is a flexible POLICY. > > Let's return the possibility to transfer PI to PA and ease the life of > a lot of small companies which need their own addresses. > > What to do with PI space that is smaller than the minimum allocation > size? > I see excellent way - Make a minimum /22 and just wait for a little > bit - when addresses will end finally. Than every block can be turned > into the PA. > > Best regards, Kseniya > > > > 21.10.2013 22:35, Carsten Schiefner пишет: >> Gert, >> >> you still seem to be a bit stressed out - no relaxing weekend?! ;-) >> >> On 21.10.2013 20:40, Gert Doering wrote: >>> But I think we have found another volunteer for the minimum >>> allocation >>> size obstacle regarding IPv4 PA->PI conversion. Also related to IPv4 >>> PI, >>> but differently... >> >> This should read "regarding IPv4 PI->PA conversion" - as it concerns >> converting "ASSINGED PI" IPv4 space of LIRs into "ALLOCATED PA" space >> for the respective LIR. >> >> The (main) question here is: what to do with PI space that is smaller >> than the minimum allocation size. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -C. >>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]