[address-policy-wg] saving v4 space for new entrants
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] saving v4 space for new entrants
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of Policy Proposal 2012-04 - PI Assignments from the last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Wed Feb 6 20:38:01 CET 2013
> -----Original Message----- > > it is allowed to merge LIR's that have been assigned > an allocation from the final /8. > > I've been hearing several discussions in the grapevines from parties that are > already low on IP space to use that loop-hole to setup new LIR's, merge them > and repeat. What if there are legitimate reasons to merge smaller LIRs? I don't see any way to attack this without creating more costly enforcement issues and needless forms of categorizing and regulating LIRs. > To me, I think that we should cut off this route asap, otherwise we might as > well hand out the final /8 as if any other /8 .. and be done with it ... That is not such a bad option, really. New entrants could acquire them in the secondary market anyway, or from brokers or leases. And if you're a v6 evangelist, the sooner the remaining v4s are vacuumed up, the better, no? But it may be that the status quo is the optimal middle ground. Perhaps 1/4 of the /22s are actually given to the intended type of recipient, it's better than nothing. > Btw.. anyone in need of a deckchair ? Just bring some whiskey and cigars .. And a brass band! And Kate Winslet!! But why the metaphor of a sinking ship? The v4 internet is not sinking, it's just becoming more efficient.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] saving v4 space for new entrants
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of Policy Proposal 2012-04 - PI Assignments from the last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]