[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Fri Feb 8 09:43:33 CET 2019
Hi Radu-Adrian, All, On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 11:19, Jim Reid wrote: >> The question here I think is what should be the trigger event. And then >> what happens to the remaining v4 addresses that fell down the back of >> the sofa, slipped through the cracks in the floorboards and ended up in >> a disused basement behind a locked door that has a ?beware of the >> leopard? sign. >> >> Well OK. That?s two questions. :-) > > Concerning the trigger, it seems pretty clear : Cannot allocate a single /22. > The second, I would rewrite into "What is the amount of recovered space > every year? When does recovery happens (all year or specific period of > the year) ?". That's really for the NCC's Registration Services Dept. to answer, i think :-) > Plus estimations for the future if any. Oh, that will be a hard exercise. > However there are some questions on what does the NCC do *before* getting there. > > Let's remember there still are temporary allocations. How much space do > they usually take out of the /13 reserved for them ? Should be move > temporary allocations to standard pool (and merge their pool into the > main one) ? If yes, when ? Now ? When there are no more /22 in the > regular pool (preventing the switch to /24 for a few months) ? when > there is only /xx (/13 suggested) free space in the regular pool ? Do > we need a policy for that of is it just "NCC bookkeeping stuff" ? I would say: Don't touch that /13. Keep it simple :-) > There's the quarantine (returned/recovered blocks) : what happens when > there's not a single /22 in the "free" pool, but there is space in the > "Reserved pool" (quarantine + temp allocations). Imho, that's a different pool. >> How much v4 space would the NCC be holding once it?s no longer got /22s >> to allocate? >> >> That?s three questions. :-) > > That's about 10 questions. An answer before the impact analysis (I'm > confident this will at least reach "impact analysis") would be greatly > appreciated. > > I will be able to give an opinion based on the answers to those > questions. For the moment I'm half for (because the waiting list is > something that will be needed at some point in the future), Fully agree :-) > and half against (the "let's end the IPv4 madness" stuff). Please see my previous e-mail. Unfortunately IPv4 *usage* is not going away anytime soon... :( Regards, Carlos > Regards, > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]