[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 ]
Sascha E. Pollok
sp at iphh.net
Tue May 8 10:10:09 CEST 2012
>> 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? Or they give up on PI-plans and go to a LIR that can assign /24 and then deaggregate and multihome. For the routing table growth this should not matter. I don't say that this would be fair but it is still a feasible way to go. And of course, having PA or PI is still a difference especially when it is about changing ISPs/associated LIRs. -Sascha
- 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 ]