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 Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published(Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
marc.neuckens at belgacom.be
marc.neuckens at belgacom.be
Wed Oct 8 17:46:22 CEST 2008
Do I understand it correctly that a big part of RIPE community has no major objections to the following : LIR A has different allocations At a certain moment it no longer requires part of this address space. LIR_A can sell this to LIR_B as long as LIR B can justify it's need (at any price agreed between LIR_A and LIR_B) If this is allowed, don't you think some people are thinking of starting a new company with impressive business plans and lot's of future customers but their only reason of existence is speculation on IPv4 exhaustion ? Marc Neuckens Belgacom > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda > Sent: 08 October 2008 17:14 > To: michael.dillon at bt.com; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling > Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > On 08/10/2008 4:44, "michael.dillon at bt.com" <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote: > > >>> It is contrary to the goals of this document > >>> and is not in the interests of the Internet > >>> community as a whole for address space to be > >>> considered freehold property. > >> > >> Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents > >> into account? "Different circumstances". > > > > Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not > > make any distinction between the two versions of IP. > > Actually, the first sentence to that document starts with the words: "This > document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of > globally unique IPv6 addresses". It is very clear that it doesn't apply to > IPv4. > > The fact that IPv4 is almost completely allocated while IPv6 is almost > completely empty seems relevant to me. I'd like to think that the policy > took appropriate account of the circumstances. > > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda **** DISCLAIMER **** http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published(Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]