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] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Oct 9 14:11:51 CEST 2012
Hi, On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 12:16:24PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > > While we still do not have much experience with sub-allocations, the > > warning "if you hand it all out, you might not get new space easily, > > so be wary" is moot - it's now "if you hand it out, there will not be > > any more space, period!", and LIRs should have noticed *that* by now... > > The way I see it, this argument applies equally well to LIR->EU > assignments, and to {LIR,EU}->{LIR,EU} transfers. I don't understand > what makes sub-allocations special here. Well, sub-allocation used to be special in the same way allocations are different than PI assignments - "the receipient is assumed to be an ISP-ish operation that provides (needs-based) assignment to lots of end-users". > It would IMHO be much more interesting to see a proposal that would > retire the needs-based principle completely for all forms of IPv4 > delegations (that aren't taken from the NCC pool). Does it really serve > any useful purpose nowadays? There are traces of needs-based still present in the system - like the transfer policy requiring the receipient to "document need" to the NCC to get the transfer approved (... and the ARIN folks flatly refusing cross-RIR transfers if the receipient RIR has no needs-based component). So if you permit LIRs to "just give away their stuff" and then go back to the NCC and claim "need!" (to get an incoming transfer approved), this is not without its own risks. (Not that we couldn't change the transfer policy towards "both parties tell the NCC, the NCC registers the transfer, done"... someone would have to propose that, though, and fight for it) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121009/89cedd00/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]