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] "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 ]