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] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tom Hill
tom.hill at bytemark.co.uk
Fri Aug 28 14:28:19 CEST 2015
Hi Walter, On 28/08/15 13:17, SBS - Support wrote: > That is like running away from responsibility of policing usage based on > need and promoting illicit IP trading. If need is justified there has to > be a process to allocate additional IP resources. Have you seen what's happened in North America recently? I don't think that is a good news situations for small/new ISPs, and yet the story for bigger ISPs doesn't seem to have changed as a result. Anyone trading IPs (illegitimate or legitimately) is likely to be rather happy about the situation, too. Now that we have an example of what happens when you run out of IPv4 without 'running down fairly', one would hope it's clearer now why the policy is in place. Best regards, -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 (0) 1904 890 890
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]