[address-policy-wg] 2014-04 new radical suggestions
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 new radical suggestions
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Wed May 7 16:01:02 CEST 2014
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: > > If you go down this road, exactly which address blocks an organisation > gets from ARIN will prohibit them from getting a /22 from RIPE NCC? And if > you look at organisational structure it becomes even more complicated: what > if a big corporation has subsidiaries in both the US and EU, and the US > company gets address space from ARIN. Does that disqualify the EU > company/LIR from getting address space? > > Remember: someone has to be able to implement the policies we create here! > :) > I was about to post something very similar to this, but then you stole the show. ;) Very well put, I agree completely, although I think it's a bit of a mess that we have regional separation of IP registries in the first place, this isn't something that's fixed or mitigated by making policies dependent on what I consider unpredictable remote social dynamics. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140507/7b91faaf/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 new radical suggestions
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]