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] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Per Heldal
heldal at eml.cc
Tue Jul 28 20:25:53 CEST 2009
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:30:41 +0200 Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > Be careful with your wishes. "IP number portability", prescribed by > the regulation authorities, would be the end of the Internet routing > as we know it. > Once again: I've been been around more than long enough to know that "IP number portability" is rubbish, and I apologise if my statement was interpreted that way. I was however hinting towards a comparison of DNS-records and phone-numbers wrt portability. Hence my suggestion that market regulators may want to look at the ways in which ISP's and others hijack DNS records, and otherwise makes it much harder than it has to be to move from one IP-block to another. Micro PI blocks should really have been a no-issue by now. Note also that ARIN limits PI to /22, although it's recently been discussed to liberalise to /24. //per
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]