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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Mon Sep 14 11:13:46 CEST 2015
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 09:36, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > Hi to all. > > 2015-01 has been approved to prevent IPv4 exhaustion (Elvis was an Hello, More to prevent abuse. Today we "celebrate" 3 years into exhaustion and the only thing that can be done is make sure things are less painful until we get rid of the "need for IPv4" by having a fully workable IPv6 Internet (for the moment we don't). > author). And you suggest to allocate additional blocks now. As told some > stuffs from the IPRA, here is the conflict, isn't it? I'm not a broker and not in the transfer business (not at all for now, and if I ever will, it's highly unlikely for me to be on anything other than the receiving side). So I don't see any conflict. Regards, -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]