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] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria (Jim Reid)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria (Jim Reid)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria (Jim Reid)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Nov 16 14:22:53 CET 2015
On 16 Nov 2015, at 13:12, NOC ATOMOHOST <noc at atomohost.com> wrote: > > A lot of LIR's in the number of regions cannot allow themselves "serious approach to using IPv6" because of outdated infrustructure and lack of resources . I’m sympathetic to those problems Igor. Everyone is. But the root cause of these problems has to be tackled. Burning through the last reserves of IPv4 as a short-term workaround does not seem wise. It would be as pointless as putting a band-aid over an arterial bleed. The problems of outdated infrastructure and lack of resources would still be there after a more liberal allocation policy for the last /8 meant ALL of the remaining IPv4 was gone.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria (Jim Reid)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria (Jim Reid)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]