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] [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 ]
LeaderTelecom B.V.
info at leadertelecom.nl
Thu Oct 11 10:36:51 CEST 2012
Dear Tore, > 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. Transfers are very useful for permanent transfer. Sub-allocations - for temporary use. This allows to control what happend's with IP-addresses while if they will be in black list (SpamHouse, etc..) - then impossible to use them in future. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov 09.10.2012 14:16 - Tore Anderson написал(а): * Gert Doering > James' proposal has its merits, but OTOH, just loosening up sub-allocations > might be the approach more appropriate for "the time we're living through". > > [...] > > 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. 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? If some LIR wants to give away (assign, transfer, sub-allocate - whatever) all their remaining free space to someone who doesn't really need it - why not let them? It won't impact me or anyone else since their wasteful spending can no longer translate into an increased draw from the shared pool. I, on the other hand, would certainly not miss the assignment request documentation bureaucracy. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - [1]http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ [1] http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121011/fd8b982f/attachment.html>
- 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 ]