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 ]
Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca
datos at tvt-datos.es
Sat Apr 12 10:16:13 CEST 2014
Hi Sander, El 11/04/2014 13:44, Sander Steffann escribió: > So to make something like this work you would need a different policy. Some things you can think about: > - stronger need required (but in a shortage situation there is lots of need) > - maximum allocation sizes (which means people get a bit more, but still less than they need) When I said nothing to min/max allocs I didnt mean no max/min alloc. I just didnt get to that part. Im starting at the beggning. What I am talking right now is - Is it a potential proposal to use the reserved pool, when reaching a N (N is not defined yet) millions IPs, to give allocations of /X (X isnt defined yet too) to those LIRs that have the requirements (Requirements arent defined yet)? If it is, then we can start talking about N, X, Requirements and so. > This is difficult to get right. Try playing several scenarios in your mind, trying to look at the allocation speed, the potential loopholes to game the system, the resulting economic balance etc. I tried, its hard, and is the main reason Im here. I could make the proposal alone, but that would have 99.99^(period)% of being a failed proposal. > Very much appreciated! This is however a topic that has been thoroughly discussed in the past, and we know how difficult it is to make good policy considering the IPv4 runout. The current final /8 policy is the best this working group has come up with. While lots of people would be very happy if they were able to get more IPv4 addresses it will be difficult to make that happen in a fair and useful way. Hard doesnt mean impossible. Thats the way i think. When was proposed the final /8 policy? Lets say 2011. What thought this group about how IPv6 would be in 2014? (dont know if I said it well) > But it is always good to look at alternatives every once in a while. Thank you for that! Thank you! -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefonía Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protección de datos de carácter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electrónico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, están dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de envío y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y especificación de los mismos, derechos que podrá hacer efectivos dirigiéndose a Televisión Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).
- 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 ]