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] R: address-policy-wg
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] R: address-policy-wg
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Suchy
danny at danysek.cz
Fri Oct 30 12:15:05 CET 2015
On 29.10.2015 15:09, Alessio Genova wrote: > Vice versa I’m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public > IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who > really needs them. In case of stopping of CGN/NAT usage in incumbent's networks (which're holding large allocations), they *WILL* need them like you. Everyone needs them, but IPv4 address space is exhausted - that's reality and these days you *must* deploy NAT for end-users. I don't see any way of *avoiding* IP market. There will be always some ways to bypass policy. In worst case we'll have inaccurate registry as consequence of strict regulations avoiding transfers etc. This approach never worked. With regards, Daniel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4233 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151030/77069630/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] R: address-policy-wg
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]