[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 ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Wed Apr 20 22:43:50 CEST 2016
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > IIRC, the triggering of the "last /8" policy (as it has usually been > known) > did not coincide with receipt of 185/8 from (NB: not "by") IANA by > RIPE NCC, > but rather with the first allocation by RIPE NCC from 185/8. 185/8 received from IANA on feb. 2011 185/8 went "in use" (and the policy started) on sept 2012 > As Roger Jørgensen has explained, once the policy was triggered, it > was to apply to all subsequent allocations. However, in the meantime some events happened: - recovered space issue - space returned to IANA 2012-05 to 2014-04 and gradually returned starting 2014-05 - 2013-03 - no need checking - 2014-04 - no ipv6 requirement - still keeping a high (~= /8) level of "somehow available space" - policy abuse, pushing to limits and general change in "who is a LIR" (get-to-transfer, multi-LIR/company, out-of-continent LIRs - more and more of them, corporate LIRs or simply "just want my damn ASN and /24" LIRs) I hope everybody does realize how this proposal came to life.
- 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 ]