[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] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue Apr 28 08:24:20 CEST 2015
Hello, Noone (in the RIPE/NCC service region) is able to get more than a /22, according to current policies, or did i miss something? If someone is asking (and actually getting) more than a /22, those allocations need to be revoked -- i honestly thought current policy already included that... Regards, Carlos On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Petr Umelov wrote: > 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] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]