This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Thu Apr 23 20:03:15 CEST 2015
* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > While some people agree with the concept, I'm not sure that the > community in its whole (or majority) will agree with rolling-back > several years of (already-established) policies. This definitely needs > more discussion (maybe during a meeting): > - restore needs-based allocation (which has been "abolished" in order > to legitimate already widespread but not really appreciated practice- > lying about "needs" and "use") > - soften the "last /8" policy - between 2010 and now the situation > changed, and things will change even more in the upcoming years. Not to > mention that now we have some real-life experience. Hello Radu-Adrian, It was the «last /8 policy» itself that abolished needs-based allocation, actually. After its implementation in autumn 2012, each LIR gets only a single /22, regardless of its actual need (which could be both larger or smaller than a /22). The rationale for this policy was not at all to «legitimate lying», but to attempt to ensure that new entrants would still be able to get hold of a little bit of IPv4 five or maybe even ten years after depletion. If we re-instate needs-based allocation, I'd expect that the RIPE NCC's remaining IPv4 pool would evaporate completely more or less over-night. The ~18 million IPv4 addresses in the RIPE NCC's pool are likely not nearly enough to cover the latent unmet need that has been building in the region since the «last /8 policy» was implemented. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]