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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Thu Oct 27 15:26:11 CEST 2011
On 27 Oct 2011, at 13:25, Nigel Titley wrote: > But a brand new IXP will be able to get a /22 under the existing > rules. Surely that's enough? > > I have a general dislike of "special cases" especially where they > don't seem to be necessary. And this seems to be unnecessary. +1 on both points. I wonder too about how this policy could be gamed. What happens if new (or existing) LIRs pretend to be IXPs to snatch extra v4 space they wouldn't otherwise get? Once the v4 ship really starts to sink, people are bound to grap hold of anything that looks like a lifeboat and make sure nobody else gets to climb aboard.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]