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] "needs", last /8, ... (Was: 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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Apr 23 20:20:00 CEST 2015
Hi, this thread has drifted quite far, but a few comments need to be made: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:33:29PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > 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): It definitely is way outside the scope of this proposal. Bringing back needs based allocation, removing the last-/8 policy, or changing the size of the last-/8 allocation would have to be a separate policy proposal. > - restore needs-based allocation (which has been "abolished" in order > to legitimate already widespread but not really appreciated practice- > lying about "needs" and "use") Actually if you go back and actually read the discussion concerning that proposal, it has been abolished because there is nothing left to allocate based on "need" - if I need a /8, and you need a /20, we both get a /22, so where's the benefit in having a complex system that will lead to the same result anyway, no matter how big your need is? > - 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. In which way has the situation changed, except that we're now very close to *3* RIRs having run out of IPv4 addresses (and/or are in the "last /8" phase)? Has someone discovered a magic store of IPv4 addresses that we can use to return to the time of large pools and /10 allocations to big telcos? I'm sure you understand that there's thousands of RIPE LIRs out there that *all* want IPv4 space - so if you loosen up the policy too far, RIPE NCC will dry out in a few months, and nothing will be left. This is what ARIN (consciously) did, not having a soft-landing / last-/8 policy, and we decided that we want to have a long tail of "some leftover bits of addresses to hand to newcomers in the market, 5 or 10 years hence". Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150423/86735850/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "needs", last /8, ... (Was: 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 ]