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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Remco van Mook
Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com
Thu Aug 7 12:34:07 CEST 2008
The point is quite simple - why bother being strict in allocating small blocks when in the end you're going to hand them over to a single request anyway. I don't want anyone filing a request that cleans out the cupboard in one go. If that's what the community wants, fine. But somehow I don't think so. We can also do a 'one size fits all' trick, or how about saying any organization (note that I'm not saying LIR here) is not allowed more than x% of the TOTAL space in that RIR region? Those /18s are not going to save BT or any other super-duper-large LIR from drowning but they might have a significant impact on the less gigantic or maybe, shock, new entrants. Or maybe we should just allow the space to run out as quickly as we can so new mechanisms can establish themselves de facto, rather than arguing about the inevitable. (yes that's a 2007-08 reference) Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: matthew.ford at bt.com [mailto:matthew.ford at bt.com] Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 12:13 To: Remco van Mook; shane at time-travellers.org Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations Remco, > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook > Sent: 07 August 2008 10:12 > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations > > > Could someone submit another request immediately afterwards though, > > since current policies are based on need? > > That's why I referred to the 80% rule in my mail - if you > again qualify > for another allocation you can come back for one. If that's immediate, > it's immediate. What's the point? If I qualify for a /15 and I want a /15 but all the RIR has available is a bunch of /18s, I'll take those /18s. That sucks but it doesn't suck as much as if I have to make 8 applications to get those /18s. Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]