[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 ]
Momchil Petrov
m.petrov at i-net.bg
Sun Apr 17 11:06:34 CEST 2016
i'll try to see in the future... Small LIR will register on different company (or daughter) LIR just to take a "only one /22" many other companies will becoma a LIR just to take v4 IPs. It's cheaper than >10 EUR/ip, right (this is already happening). Imagine after some period of time how much voting power they will have ! Well, this proposal may be accepted or may not, but in several years... think about it, will there be a v4 space for a new entrance hmmm Following is to those who will vote "against" Don't think only for the upcoming LIRs, try to understand current ones with "only one /22" ...and don't run away with "membership is for voting, not for space allocation" because with your vote you'll decide allocation p.s. why unused space can be owned by non-working companies? and this space comes on market like "never announced space" - who need of such space Cheers, Momchil On 17.4.2016 г. 11:42 ч., Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > I think an more interesting break down would be the companies' > business(e.g the industry they are in) > > As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP > refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the > very definition of LIR. > > The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big > that group could be. > > What current ISP doing nowadays, instead of charging customer and > apply to RIPE for their customer's IP, they ask their customer come to > RIPE to become their own LIR and get their own IP then manage it for > the customer. In which, results what we see today, shipping companies, > banks, even airlines become LIR. > > > On Sunday 17 April 2016, Gert Doering <gert at space.net > <mailto:gert at space.net>> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 09:52:15AM +0300, Adrian Pitulac wrote: > > I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see > no real > > argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no > prediction, just > > "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that? > > Marco has provided statistics about the IPv4 pool runout, broken > down by > "185" and "other addresses returned". These show that while the total > number of addresses in the NCC stock is sort of "keeping up", > about half > of 185 is used up - so with the current trend going on, 185 will be > used up in 2018-2019 or so > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-last-slash-8 > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. > Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160417/375fa4d1/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 ]