[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] "needs", last /8, ... (Was: Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Thu Apr 23 20:12:45 CEST 2015
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Tore Anderson wrote: > 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. Looking at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ (figure 28e) the RIPE allocation rate was around 2-3 /8:s per year at the time of the last /8 policy kicked into effect, so the ~18 million addresses would be gone in a matter of days, at the same rate that LIRs could create applications and send them in. So apart from a few people, most of us agree that any attempt at changing policy in the more liberal direction is doomed to fail miserably. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "needs", last /8, ... (Was: Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]