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] "needs", last /8, ... (Was: 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 ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Fri Apr 24 18:07:07 CEST 2015
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 05:16:31PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: >> 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. > >Again, *more* liberal, does not mean *most* liberal. There's a huge gap >between the policies in force 13/09/2012 and before and the ones in >force 14/09/2012 and after. This what I would like to see fixed. >Could any of you have your company survive with only a /22 (and 10-15 >$/IP extra, 256/512/1024 packs towards 15$/IP) ? > If the community expended half as much effort on deploying IPv6 as it does on rationing the remaining shreds of ipv4, this problem wouldn't exist. rgds, Sascha Luck
- 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 ]