[anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> So in the scenario described above, if in fact the LIR assigned an entire
> /17 to a single customer, where that customer only had a grand total of
> one router and one server, there would be nothing whatsoever that RIPE
> NCC could or would do, in reaction, in order to prevent or reverse this
> kind of colossal waste of that large chunk of the rapidly depleating
> resource known as the IPv4 address space.  Is that correct?

Correct.  The community decided that "focus on IPv6 deployment" is more
important than spending lots of (paid by members!) respources trying to
get back IPv4 scraps here and there, which would only delay the inevitable.

Aforesaid /17 would have made RIPE NCC's IPv4 pool last about 3 weeks
longer - and in the end, no matter what we do, IPv4 would have run out,
but we had burned a lot of extra effort trying to avoid facing IPv6.

Gert Doering
        -- member of the community
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279