[address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Tue Apr 28 11:39:18 CEST 2015
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015, at 11:25, Carlos Friacas wrote: > "Need" shouldn't be a criteria anymore, as we're in > "scarcity-mode"/"run-out" mode... "Need" should be a criteria again, exactly because we're in run-out mode. Again, "need" starts and ends with "if needed", *withOUT* the "as much as you need" part. > One idea could be: «If the LIR doesn't have any other IPv4 allocation > made by the RIPE/NCC (before the run-out phase) besides the /22, if a > merge process is needed, the /22 is automatically returned to the pool». One pretty BAD idea. Not only the small players have a difficult time, but if some of them merge together, this makes sure they stay small. Renumbering is generally delicate for acess customers, and goes to very difficult (adminstratively and process-wise), sometimes limit impossible to running server and services plafroms. The idea is to prevent address hoarding in the first place, not to impose insane limitations on already running things.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]