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] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jul 6 00:22:36 CEST 2009
Andreas and all, I agree, the one-size-fits-all approach is a fools errand. Andreas Schachtner wrote: > Hello, > > > The next question is about the amount of addresses someone can get > > from the Final /8. I think we have a number of options here: > > a) Everyone gets one (and only one) fixed size block, as described in > > 2008-06 > > IMHO, the "one size fits all" approach doesn't seem the right way to go. The > rationale in the original proposal was clearly directed towards IPv6 > deployment and maintaining interconnection to the IPv4 world in this szenario. > Even if I think, this is a sensible approach, we agreed 100%, that we don't > want IPv6 related requirements in this proposal (and let me add, neither > explicit nor implicit). > > > b) All requests are downscaled by a certain factor, as described in > > 2009-04 > > This sounds sensible to me. A downsscaling factor of 64 will give enough > address space to stay in the allocation business for some (small "some) years. > > Newcomers are not discriminated, as it seems easier to me for a newcomer to > deploy multiplexing techniques than for an established operator with a large > legacy network. So the goal to keep newcomers in the game is achieved as well > (and reinforced by the proposed argument (d) below). > > > c) We place a limit on the amount of addresses that can be requested > > per time slot (year?) > > and/or > > (d) upon further allocation requests, the LIR has to demonstrate IP use under > the downscaling paradigm (e.g., some kind of multiplexing technology is > deployed for the last allocation). > > Regards, > Andreas > -- > > -- > Andreas Schachtner > > afs Holding GmbH > communication technologies & solutions > http://afs-com.de/ > > Geschaeftsfuehrer Andreas Schachtner > HRB 15448, Amtsgericht Dortmund > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]