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] 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
Thu Apr 17 16:25:41 CEST 2014
El 16/04/2014 13:06, Sander Steffann escribió: > Hi Tore, > >> Also for the sake of the argument I'll make the assumption that the >> reserved pool is activated when it contains a /10, both because that's a >> figure you've mentioned earlier, and also because waiting until it >> contains a /9 will in all likelihood mean it will sit there inactive for >> years, and that won't help anyone either. >> >> First, let's try with a max allocation size of /22. Then there would be >> 4096 /22s in the pool, enough for all of the LIRs you want us to take >> care of. > Something about this worries me. I am afraid we will end up with more 'types' of LIRs: > - the old ones that could request whatever they needed3 > - the ones that started just before runout who have one /21 and one /22 > - the first 4096 that started just after runout who have two /22s > - the later ones that have one /22 > > The first 4096 of last category could potentially get another /22 when/if the pool reaches a /10 again, but as you say this will take years. Soon we will get address space of around /10 from IANAs returned pool plus the reserved we already have. > This doesn't feel right. If we make a policy to give more IPv4 addresses to the LIRs that only have one /22 then it should be: > - equal for all of them > - sustainable for a long time Sustainable for a long time...this a tricky question. What is "long time"? Are we planning to still working in IPv4 in, lets say, 5-10 years? If yes, and in 5-10 years IPv6 isnt the main internet protocol all we, as LIRs, will have a very big problem. > > If we can do this then I don't see a problem, but in order to do this the returned pool has to be able to grow to (almost) a /8 because otherwise we won't be able to give every LIR with one /22 their second /22. And that will create unfairness again... Growing to a /8 could take several years. And not every LIR with one /22 will need a second /22. Regards, -- 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 ]