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] 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 ]