[address-policy-wg] Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Thu Jul 25 21:59:35 CEST 2013
* Erik Bais > If you think that the pool which we have left is only the final /8 that > we are working into currently (185.x.y.z) I think that the assumption is > incorrect. It is incorrect indeed. This is one of the rather confusing things about our current policy that 2013-03 aims to improve. Under 2013-03, the phase "the last /8" is completely purged from the policy language. > There is still space left at IANA and once the first RIR reaches below > their /9 mark of their final /8 … from my understanding it is , that > also that space is going to be allocated to the RIR’s . > > Also there will be reclaimed space from 2007-01 and closing LIR’s > (forced or by people their own decision) and also that space all goes > back into the same pool. Both these statements are correct. > So you might need quite a couple of new entities to finish the pool as > it is. . . Correct. I gave some stats about this here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-July/008040.html (near the bottom of the message). > I’ve seen people say, why not open 20 new entities, setup a new LIR in > each .. and you have 20 /22’s … Yes it is possible.. > > However I’ve noticed, there is little support to close this gap.. or the > gap to be able to merge those 20 LIR’s .. or the option to be able to > merge any LIR’s that already have their final /8 /22 provided. > > Yes there will be people who play the system.. and with the bottom in > sight, do we want to close all possible loopholes ? > > If we decide, no we don’t want to close the loopholes, stop mentioning > it in the discussion as a possible threat, because we already decided it > is what it is and we are not going to close the gap. Couldn't agree more. If there is a problem in today's policy that continues to be a problem with 2013-03 - don't hold it against 2013-03 (but do feel free to submit a new proposal that fixes the problem). Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]