[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 ]