[address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers

(all hats off)

If you design your network infrastructure so it requires a /21 to work,
when a /22 is all you're likely to get, the problem is not the policy
giving you a /22.

And as always, if you don't like a policy, propose a new one yourself.

Remco

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53 PM Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
> > One more argument.
> >
> > For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk
> that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs)
> >
> > But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to
> 185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22.
> >
> > But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved.
>
> There is nothing that you could do with a /21 that you could not do with
> 2x /22.  Except, maybe, sell it off as a "single /21".
>
> Next.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150629/c8bb4045/attachment.html>