[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Tue May 8 10:01:48 CEST 2012
On 5/7/12 7:34 PM, Remco Van Mook wrote: > > <all hats off> > > Alright then, for the sake of argument I'll oppose until I see some > convincing numbers. Back in the original last /8 discussion the rationale > for choosing a /22 was that it would get us about 16k final allocations, > or 1 for every NCC member and room for the membership to double in size. > Now, we have a number of new realities: So, when we hit the last /8 policy, all those who will then need IPv4 space *must* become an LIR even if one /24 PI would fulfill entirely their need? Not sure everyone appreciates that, specially not small companies or even start-ups :) Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]