[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Servereasy
info at servereasy.it
Thu Apr 14 16:48:20 CEST 2016
As young ISP, I totally agree with Aled. This solves lot of problem for us. Il 14/04/2016 16:34, Aled Morris ha scritto: > Peter, > > I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent > entrants into the market to grow. Speaking on behalf of such an > entity, it's difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in > today's market. We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this > to be the only option. > > Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really > about recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot > of recent new entrants. > > Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need > this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs > with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial > allocation. > Aled > > On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler <phessler at theapt.org > <mailto:phessler at theapt.org>> wrote: > > While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is > eligable to > receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the > simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes > problems > for new entrants". > > > -- > Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry. > > -- Saverio Giuntini Servereasy di Giuntini Saverio Amministrazione e system manager -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160414/cbee5da2/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]