[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published(Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
marc.neuckens at belgacom.be
marc.neuckens at belgacom.be
Wed Oct 8 17:46:22 CEST 2008
Do I understand it correctly that a big part of RIPE community has no major objections to the following : LIR A has different allocations At a certain moment it no longer requires part of this address space. LIR_A can sell this to LIR_B as long as LIR B can justify it's need (at any price agreed between LIR_A and LIR_B) If this is allowed, don't you think some people are thinking of starting a new company with impressive business plans and lot's of future customers but their only reason of existence is speculation on IPv4 exhaustion ? Marc Neuckens Belgacom > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda > Sent: 08 October 2008 17:14 > To: michael.dillon at bt.com; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling > Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > On 08/10/2008 4:44, "michael.dillon at bt.com" <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote: > > >>> It is contrary to the goals of this document > >>> and is not in the interests of the Internet > >>> community as a whole for address space to be > >>> considered freehold property. > >> > >> Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents > >> into account? "Different circumstances". > > > > Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not > > make any distinction between the two versions of IP. > > Actually, the first sentence to that document starts with the words: "This > document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of > globally unique IPv6 addresses". It is very clear that it doesn't apply to > IPv4. > > The fact that IPv4 is almost completely allocated while IPv6 is almost > completely empty seems relevant to me. I'd like to think that the policy > took appropriate account of the circumstances. > > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda **** DISCLAIMER **** http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published(Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]