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 18:50:56 CEST 2008
Hi David, I'm not sure how big the extra overhead will be - my estimate is not a lot - but putting it that way, that is indeed what I'm suggesting. Allocating all the fragments to a single request or small number of requests is in my opinion the worst possible thing we could do with it. Alternatively we could take the 'one size fits all' approach as has been proposed in the APNIC region as referred to by Randy. Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 18:28 To: Remco van Mook Cc: matthew.ford at bt.com; shane at time-travellers.org; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations Remco, >>>> Could someone submit another request immediately afterwards though, >>>> since current policies are based on need? >>> 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. > 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. So, you're proposing the addition of increased administrative overhead (in the form of requiring multiple applications for address space to obtain the amount of address space originally requested) as a mechanism to reduce the demand on the fragmented pool? Thanks, -drc 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 ]