[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 ]
Raul Echeberria
raul at lacnic.net
Fri May 30 20:11:03 CEST 2008
At 02:45 p.m. 30/05/2008, David Conrad wrote: >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? David: I am curious about other situation. Suppose that IANA allocates the last 2 /8s to the RIR A and one day later IANA receives a request from the RIR B that is running out of IPv4 addresses while the RIR A has (at least) 2 /8s. What do you think is going to happen? Raúl >Thanks, >-drc > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus >Database: 269.24.4/1474 - Release Date: 30/05/2008 07:44 a.m.
- 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 ]