[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu Jun 16 18:17:48 CEST 2016
Tomasz Slaski wrote: [...] > Jim, please stop kidding. Do you know anyone, who returned > the addresses to RIPE? In my 25 year career in IT I have not met > anyone who did. I'm neither supporting nor opposing the proposed policy. However, I note that there are a number of cases where organizations with large blocks of IPv4 address space they no longer need have returned that space. Several /8s were returned to global pool of unallocated IPv4 address space in 2007 and 2008. More recently, Interop returned more than 99% of a /8 to ARIN: https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4968 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160616/e7e0be12/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]