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] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Adrian Pitulac
adrian at idsys.ro
Fri Apr 15 20:59:25 CEST 2016
Just two small comments.. Correct.. Having last /8 policy permits allowing new LIR to appear.. This is ok and can go on... Is there a reason why IANA blocks redistribution to existing small LIR's will restrict this /8 policy? I don't see it.. Imposing IPv6 deployment with this redistribution will just bring benefits. I'm a little doubtful that old LIR's restricted themselves from eating up all the space. I'm more inclining to believe that certain old LIR's made a big business from this, by creating an artificial market and then sold their free ip pools on the market for a hefty profit. Not to say about the greedy ones who destroyed small ISP's just to make profit from the ip ranges they had. With regards, Adrian Pitulac On 15/04/16 21:23, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 08:27:00PM +0300, Momchil Petrov wrote: >> The situation seems to me big-LIR don't allow new-LIR to grow up... is >> this cartel or something > There is no way a "new-LIR" can grow to, say, a /12 level that some of > the big and old Telcos have - which is unfortunate, but we did not make > IPv4 with these short addresses. > > To the contrary: *because* the policy is so restrictive, "new-LIR" can > have a business at all - if we had no last-/8 restrictions, RIPE NCC would > have run out of addresses over a year ago, so "nothing at all" for new-LIRs. > > Which is more fair? > > (And we have this restrictive policy because the *old* LIRs restricted > themselves(!) from eating up all the space, leaving something for the > new LIRs to come) > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]