[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Fri Feb 20 21:10:30 CET 2015
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:19:04PM +0100, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: >The limitation to only one /22 (from the last /8) per LIR has been >approved by this community years ago. Reverting this policy proposal >is a discussion that I would like to see in a separate thread and not >part of the discussion of this policy proposal. I didn't argue for a reversal of "last /8", merely against fixing every "loop-hole" in order to make the ipv4 misery run even longer. Although, if it is true that NCC has more free space now than it had when "last /8" came in, this loop-hole seems more of an academic concern anyway. >Can you explain why you tend to oppose so I could try to address your >concerns? I'd like to see ipv6 deployment get some (more) traction while I'm still alive tbh. And I think that leaving the speculators to it might accelerate that a lot more than giving out golden stars for ipv6 deployment or requiring ipv6 allocations (but not their use) for "last /8" ipv4 allocations. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]