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] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erik Bais - A2B Internet
ebais at a2b-internet.com
Sat Apr 25 21:34:53 CEST 2015
Hi Petr, Besides the fact that all discussion and input on the named policy is currently out-side the discusssion phase.. So the input can't be taken into account ... Could you provide insight in which universe the RIPE NCC is still allocating /20's ? I am aware that the IPRA's are trying to aggregate connected prefixes if possible .. Is that what you are trying to do in getting a /20 ? ... Open 4 or more lir's and issue the tickets for the IPv4 /22's at the same time in hope to get them allocated together from the same block ... So you can aggregate them after a transfer or M&A ? What you are saying here .... IS the reason why the community is looking at this policy proposal ... If you need more than a /22 the only way is to get this from the market ... I wonder why people still think that they can or will get IPv4 from the Ripe NCC ... Erik Bais > Op 25 apr. 2015 om 18:13 heeft Petr Umelov <petr at fast-telecom.net> het volgende geschreven: > > Hi everybody. > > Let me tell some words about current proposal. > > Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: > 1. /20 > 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets > 3. /22, /21, /22 > > There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. > And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. > > If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. > > -- > Kind regards, > Techincal Director FastTelecom > Petr Umelov >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]