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] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Remco van Mook
remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com
Tue Apr 7 20:58:09 CEST 2009
Dear Daniel, dear all, First of all I support this proposal, and thank you for taking the time to create it. I think the idea has great merit, but I¹m also reminded of an idea I sent out to the address policy mailing list and the feedback I got based on that. For that thread, see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00501. html . Just to refresh your memory, I proposed a policy that would only allocate a single block of space, regardless of the size of the request and available remaining inventory. One of the main shortcomings of my idea was that assignments from a new allocation don¹t happen in a Œgradual¹ way, which is one of the main assumptions behind any scheme based on time-windows. Larger organizations will just come back quicker not necessarily after the set window. I¹m afraid this proposal has the same Œweakness¹. Kind regards, Remco On 06-04-09 14:10, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > attached you will find a policy proposal we call "Run Out Fairly". > It is based on a discussion instigated by your's truly during the > open policy hour at the latest RIPE meeting. > > This is a proposal to gradually reduce the allocation and assignment > periods in step with the expected life time of the IPv4 unallocated pool > in order to address the perception of unfairness once the pool has run > out. > > The proposal is not intended to stretch the lifetime of the unallocated > pool. > > The proposal is independent of other proposals to reserve address space > for transition purposes and/or new entrants. It can be implemented > independently of these. > > We thank Filiz Yilmaz for her help, invite discussion of this proposal > and look forward to high quality comments. > > For the authors > > Daniel Karrenberg > > PS: Can we refer to this proposal by name and not by number? ;-) > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090407/22c3e072/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]