[anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Feb 7 13:20:29 CET 2013
Hi, On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 05:29:59PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Well let us put it this way. > > The entities Ron's been thinking of have been doing this on the /15 scale > for quite a while now, so I do think they should have quite a few /16s on > the "use till it gets heavily blocked, get a new one from a RIPE LIR" > principle. If a LIR comes back for "more space", and cannot plausibly document that their existing space is full (80%), then the RIPE NCC won't give them extra space - so in the example of a /17 lying around mostly unused, the LIR would find itself in a pretty painful position. We *do* encourage making use of the addresses, we just don't go out of our ways to active reclaim possible-unused space. > Three weeks here, three weeks there and you're looking at the best part of > a year more at a conservative estimate. A /16 is just not that much space. A /8 would be interesting, but even *that* isn't "a year more" (and even "a year more" would be the wrong signal, namely "yeah, there's more IPv4" - which will just get people to roll out more IPv4-only stuff that will need to be touched later). > And I would be very interested to see just how much v6 space they have. > > Ron - noticed some? > > And please don't even tell me there's enough v6 space for everybody so we > needn't worry about IP allocation at all, that is what we all thought back > when class A, B and C addresses were being handed out, so we might as well > learn from our past experience as from anything else. I can do math (and learned that from experience). Can you? If a rogue LIR gets a fresh /29 every week, paying a full RIPE membership fee each time, RIPE's /12 will last about 2500 years. And then, there's about 500 more /12s inside FP 001, and *then*, we get about 6 more tries to make a more conservative IPv6 allocation policy. Should I care? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130207/ad585bdc/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]