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] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Daniel Velea
elvis at v4escrow.net
Thu Apr 10 13:28:53 CEST 2014
Hi, On 10/04/14 13:13, Tore Anderson wrote: > Hi, > >> But instead of running into exhaustion in "2 months" we can handle it to >> be "2 years". Please, take in account the time between quotes as an >> example. > An example, perhaps, but a wildly unlikely one if I understand¹ your > proposal correctly. The LIRs in the RIPE region have over the last 18 > month gathered up a large unmet demand. Therefore I expect that if we do > create a new small pool for "normal" allocations, it will be gone pretty > much overnight. It'll be like a lottery, just like when a radio host > announces «we've got N free X for the first Y people to call us». I do > not believe this would be useful to the community. > > [1] To 1) leave the "last /8 policy" as it currently is (1 /22 per LIR) > for 185.0.0.0/8 only, and 2) allocate according to demonstrated need for > all other addresses that somehow finds their way into the RIPE NCC's > allocation pool (such as returned/reclaimed from LIRs, delegated from > the IANA Recovered IPv4 Pool, and so forth). This new pool would have a > minimum allocation size of /24 and no maximum size. Have I understood > correctly? I would be against a policy proposal in this form. It would unequal to the members and would create more hassle for everyone (introducing the need based justification again, after we have just removed it...that would be the worst idea) Considering the size of the available and reserved pool, and noticing that it's mostly going up and not down, I would, support a policy proposal that would change the /22 in a /21 (for example). All members that already received a /22 could receive a second one, all members that have not requested a /22 from the last /8, could request a /21. > Tore > cheers, elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140410/bd3e062f/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.png Type: image/png Size: 5043 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140410/bd3e062f/attachment.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1.png Type: image/png Size: 11971 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140410/bd3e062f/attachment-0001.png>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]