This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Fri Apr 23 14:57:51 CEST 2004
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:29:00PM +0100, James A. T. Rice wrote:
> We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If
> these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm
> amazed.
Full ACK. Speaking as networking person, not as co-chair.
The approach is interesting. "Since getting public address space means
'lots of work in making a proper address plan', we just grab 3 full /8s".
So how to proceed? Is this an IETF working group (-backed) thing, or
just a private draft? Should there be a formal RIR response? Is this
RIR business, or ICANN/AC/ASO business? I'm a bit confused about the
politics here.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]