[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Greg
bgp2 at linuxadmin.org
Thu Nov 8 16:00:04 CET 2012
Hello. Absolutely right.... Applying for LIR status just for multi-homing where /24 PI space is more than enough is a waste of much bigger IPv4 space, but then again more money for some ..... :> Greg On 2012-11-07 15:17, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: > Hello Gert, > > On 11/07/2012 08:17 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 04:41:51PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote: >>> To put it differently: Why does anyone who considers IPv4 legacy >>> care >>> about how it's used up? >> Well, I *do* care about the way we use the community's resources in >> policy building. > > I'm confused. We should all care about the way the community's > resources are used. That's the whole point of this discussion (and > this group). What we're now seeing, is new LIRs that never wanted to > become LIRs in the first place and just wanted a /24 of PI space. > They > have no (real) alternative though if they want to multihome (as an > LIR/ISP I'm with Nick on this one). How's that fair on them, > considering registration and handling fees? > > As far as IPv6 goes, most of us or on the same boat, no need to state > the obvious. As Richard said, the question here is whether we should > hand out PI from the last /8 or not. > > regards, > Yannis
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]