[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 ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Mon Jun 20 20:06:17 CEST 2016
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Alexey Galaev <alex at vpsville.ru> wrote: > I’m inclined to disagree with proposal I used to see and I have a > different take on it. > > We have the main problem: there are no IPv4 address space for all. This > proposal just take privilege to old LIR's and limit in rights all new > LIR's. But this does not solve the problem. We need to use IPv4 more > effectively and stimulate to use IPv6. Why can't we add some payment for > ALL current IPv4 blocks? Because this group decides address policy, not membership fees. > For example, 0.5$/year for IP. All unusable IPv4 will be returned as > unprofitable. What the difference between unused space from last /8 and > unused space from first /8? The difference is that there is no "unused space from first /8". > And what the differnce between old and new LIR's? > The difference appears to be that the old LIRs wanted new LIRs to have a chance to exist, while new LIRs do not want new LIRs to exist. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/25664bdd/attachment.html>
- 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 ]