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 ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue Apr 28 12:05:57 CEST 2015
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: Hi, > 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. We agree to disagree :-) >> 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. They would need to remain a LIR in order to keep its /22. What i don't like is the ability for someone to create a new LIR knowing it will be decommissioned later, because the only intent is to "catch" a /22. > 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. Yes, if one organization feels it needs to run away from renumbering, the solution is to become a LIR and get/use its own /22. It will have to do it once, but it will be the last time, provided they always keep their LIR up & running. > The idea is to prevent address hoarding in the first place, not to > impose insane limitations on already running things. Shouldn't be a problem if the LIR wasn't created with the original intent of closing it down after some time... Cheers, Carlos
- 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 ]