[address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Richard Hartmann
richih.mailinglist at gmail.com
Tue Apr 15 10:07:47 CEST 2014
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > We've consciously decided that our last-/8 policy is a "no return" policy, > to ensure new entrants in the market can still have *some* IPv4, even if > they come in 5 years or 10 years time from now. > > If you think you can convince the community that we should now go and > change it back, well, this is what the policy development process is for > - but I don't think the chances are good. Of course everyone wants more > IPv4 addresses, but nobody wants anyone *else* to take away those last > bits from him... > I am a bit late to the game, but I think this is the perfect summary and I would be forced to argue and vote against any policy proposal which wants to change the status quo regarding last /8. Sorry, Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140415/aed50316/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]