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] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Mon Oct 29 22:18:54 CET 2007
On 29 okt 2007, at 15:47, Nigel Titley wrote: > Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes > a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted > and no one much used. Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been more efficient. But I'm pretty sure it's too late anyway, just like it's too late to make 240/4 usable.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]