[address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Fri May 30 19:45:16 CEST 2008
Brian, On May 30, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote: > If both policies were introduced then I can easily > envisage a scenario where a bigger RIR uses up its /8, then starts > to nibble away at the remaining addresses of those who will be slower > to allocate their space, ie AfriNIC and LACNIC, thus defeating the > purpose of fairness that I see inherent in 2008-03. The worse case > scenario here, for the less developed RIRs at least, is that they > may see very little of that last /8. Suppose we fast forward to ~2011 and you've just been rejected by RIPE- NCC because they have no more address space to hand out whereas AfriNIC and LACNIC both have (at least) a full /8. I'm curious: what do you think is going to happen? Thanks, -drc
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]