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] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Fri May 30 20:19:06 CEST 2008
On May 30, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote: >> Suppose we fast forward to ~2011 and you've just been rejected by >> RIPE- NCC because they have no more address space to hand out whereas >> AfriNIC and LACNIC both have (at least) a full /8. >> >> I'm curious: what do you think is going to happen? > > David: > > I am curious about other situation. > Suppose that IANA allocates the last 2 /8s to the RIR A and one day > later IANA receives a request from the RIR B that is running out of > IPv4 addresses while the RIR A has (at least) 2 /8s. > > What do you think is going to happen? My understanding of the current policy regime is that IANA only allocates unused addresses. With the allocation of the last /8, IANA would be out of the IPv4 business. As such, it would be up to the RIRs involved to negotiate some "fair" solution (if any). Regards, -drc
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]