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] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Fri Feb 20 03:22:40 CET 2015
> The main design goal for the final /8 policy was to make sure that > newcomers still had the possibility of participating on the IPv4 > internet. It is unfortunately still not possible to run an ISP, hoster > etc. with only IPv6. Without the final /8 policy every new company > would have to get (borrow, buy, rent, ...) IPv4 addresses from > existing companies that already got IPv4 addresses before we ran out > of addresses to distribute using our needs-based allocation > policies. With the final /8 policy they don't get much but at least > they are able to participate on the internet. There is still an > imbalance because of the low amount of addresses they get but at least > they have *something* to work with. try to minimize barrier to entry. i am sure there are nice terms in law for intentionally doing the opposite. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]