[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Sun Jun 12 00:04:16 CEST 2016
* Aled Morris > So for all those people who argue we should be preserving the remaining > address space in order to allow for new ISPs entering the market for as > long as possible (which I agree with), we need to be realistic about end > users who want (what was once called) PI space and not make the only > option to be "become an LIR" It's not the only option, PI blocks may still be acquired: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfers/ipv4/transfer-of-assigned-pi-space https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655#IPv6_PI_Assignments > with the result that we erode the free pool faster > (i.e. allocating /22 when a /24 would be more than adequate.) The simplest way of slowing down the allocation rate is probably to reduce the allocation size from /22 to either /23 or /24. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]