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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed Jul 8 22:53:49 CEST 2009
Hi, On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:46:36PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Gert Doering wrote: > > > Please stick to the topic of *this* discussion. Even with reclamation > > efforts, eventually we will reach the last /8, > > Why? > > Assuming reduction of address space consumption by mandating NAT, > I can't understand how the last /8 could be reached before IPv4 > will be replaced by something not likely to be IPv6. > > Could you elaborate? There is no mandate to use NAT in the RIPE region (and I think that this is a good thing, as NAT might be useful, but overall it takes away freedom from the Internet users, and this shouldn't be forced on anybody). If the RIPE community wants to force NAT on people, well, they can of course change the policy. But in the policy as it is now, there is nothing that can force NAT on anybody. Given this, and given the growth of Internet in less-developed regions, yes, it is very likely that we'll reach the last /8. And soon. > > and *this* discussion is > > only covering the rules for the last /8. > > I don't think it off topic to discuss whether there will be the > last /8 or not. By decree of the WG chair it is off-topic *in this discussion thread*. It is not off-topic on the list per se, but to keep some semblance of structure, *this* thread needs to focus on a very specific question. > It is a fair counter argument against a policy proposal on the > last /8 to say there won't be the last /8. Yes. But this specific discussion thread is about a very specific aspect of the proposal. Since we have different last-/8-Proposals on the table, we're trying to merge them into a common proposal, which you can then be opposed to. But please do this in a new discussion thread with a new Subject: line. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 305 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090708/bd8abe25/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]