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] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin Millnert
millnert at gmail.com
Thu May 26 17:28:21 CEST 2011
Hi Remco, On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I'll try to answer the points you raised below: > > 1. This proposal does not impact transfer at all. Addresses that get > transferred are at no point in that process 'returned to the RIPE NCC'. > > 2. It's not explicitly defined because it all depends on the address space > returned. As I already indicated in another email, the long term effect of > this is likely to be that all /8s managed by the RIPE NCC will have a > minimum allocation size of a /22; and if we then run out of /22s or larger > and need to hand out multiple smaller blocks (moving to clause 4) a few > additional /8s might get *really* unlucky. But that will only happen when > we're scraping the RIPE NCC barrel. > > Best regards, > > Remco > Thank you for the clarification. I'm satisfied with the above, which is what I expected. Thanks! Best regards, Martin
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]