[address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Philip Smith
pfs at cisco.com
Wed Oct 15 20:21:14 CEST 2008
Hi Michael, michael.dillon at bt.com said the following on 16/10/08 01:42: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html > > I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an > IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few > IPv4 blocks? Is there any good reason to give out one of > the last IPv4 blocks to an LIR which has no intention of > deploying IPv6? It's not clear to me what an organisation can do with a small amount of IPv4 address space at the stage when this policy would come into play. I think anyone who wants their business to carry on growing beyond the run-out of the IANA IPv4 pool will already have IPv6 on their radar. I suppose they could do NAT upon NAT upon NAT, but that doesn't sound like a viable option to me. Hence opting for the softer option of simply sharing out the remaining IPv4 /8 as per the proposal. > It would also be nice if the policy had a clearer statement > about this being a quota or rationing system. Isn't it self evident? (LIR will only get the RIPE NCC minimum allocation in force at the time the allocation is requested.) philip --
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]