[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 08:42:41 CEST 2015
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > Hello! Greetings, > Petr means opening multiple LIR's and requesting /22's for all these LIR's at once. "Opening multiple LIR's" == workaround, as in "a way to cheat the system". > if you are lucky RIPE NCC will process you requests one after another and allocate you adjacent range of IP's. It shouldn't be a matter of luck... As you say "allocate you", that implies ONE organization. And ONE organization should only get ONE /22... ;-) Regards, Carlos > 28.04.2015, 09:24, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas at fccn.pt>: >> 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 > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 >
- 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 ]