[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Thu Jul 18 08:25:40 CEST 2019
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:13:05PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, > > You opinion can be diverse, of course, but it is clear that I'm not alone. > > I fail to see much support for your well-formulated problem statement. So count me as one of the supporters. I see at least two extra advantages of legacy space being converted to "regular" IP space: 1. RIPE-705 can be enforced on those entities. [1] 2. This close all possible loopholes similar to the one exploited in the past and presented by Janos during October 2016 GM under agenda point 6. [1] Look at two random examples: 151.80.183.140/30 and 192.94.58.0/24. In both cases I don't think that those companies were legacy at all. Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre Gliwice, Poland
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]