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 ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Fri Feb 20 12:29:37 CET 2015
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:21:12PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote: >This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4 >for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4 >resellers who in turn can protect their prices. I can't actually see that. The proposal doesn't move the goalposts for a new LIR at all, assuming that a new business would want to hang on to their ipv4 space for at least two years. It doesn't even prevent them from creating >1 LIR if they need more than 1024 addresses - as long as each "LIR" hangs on to theirs for 2 years. The only difficulty is in creating multiple LIRS and then immediately merging them (and that issue has been raised) rgds, Sascha Luck
- 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 ]