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 3.2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Sep 16 17:49:08 CEST 2009
Hi, On 14/09/2009 12:50, "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: [...] >> I don't know how many years people want small blocks of IPv4 address >> space >> to be available for under a policy along these lines but I think if >> it is >> more than just one or two it probably needs to be designed in a way >> that >> takes account of historic demand and how people will react when other >> avenues are cut off. > > Because this is just for initial allocations, I think 2 to 4 years is > a reasonable timeframe. IPv4 will run out. This is only meant to make > sure that new entrants have a few IPv4 addresses to work with. What are the consequences to running out significantly earlier than 2-4 years? How important is the continued availability of small blocks when the bulk of the IPv4 address space ahs already been allocated? Regards, Leo Vegoda
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]