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] New Proposal for IPv4 Allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Proposal for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Proposal for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Sat Aug 15 12:33:08 CEST 2015
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015, at 09:57, ripe at europeiptv.net wrote: > Hello, The proposal is that once an LIR has received one /22 from > 185/8, LIRs are eligible to apply for another /22, and that the blocks > ranges are used that IANA has redistributed so far today is: > > 45.128.0.0 - 45.159.255.255 > 45.8.0.0 - 45.15.255.255 > 45.80.0.0 - 45.95.255.255 > > and that these allocations are governed by the policy 2015-01 as well. > > You know what I mean? ( I'm sorry for my English ). Hi, You are not the not the only one thinking about the "last /8 policy" revision. See https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf However, there are 2 conflicting point on which a number of community members insist (on both at the same time): - making the "last /8" pool (including recovered space) last as long as possible - no not reinstate needs-based policy Whatever touches the allocation policy would violate at least one of them.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Proposal for IPv4 Allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Proposal for IPv4 Allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]