[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
LeaderTelecom B.V.
info at leadertelecom.nl
Wed Oct 3 10:38:35 CEST 2012
Dear Tore, > I question the wisdom of abolishing the need-based mechanism for > sub-allocations exclusively, when (to the best of my knowledge) all > other mechanisms to obtain number resources in all other regions are > need-based. Need-based princip make sense only until RIR has IPv4 for allocations. I understand that it was many years and it is as habit. > > Just see how many transfers in other RIRs. This mechanism work not very good > > for now. > How come? > In any case, if the transfer policy is broken somehow, why not fix it? Transfers good for permanent transfer. For temporary transfers better option sub-allocations while if you transfer IPs for some time than you get them back and see that they are in spamhouse and other black lists. In case of sub-allocation IPs in your control and you can regulate it. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121003/4d20069c/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]