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] 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 ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Sat Apr 16 13:36:53 CEST 2016
> On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" > equals no business. And these other markets are either dead or dying because there is no more IPv4. Some might survive if they can adapt to reality in time. Any current business model which depends on issuing a dedicated (public?) IPv4 addresses to new customers is doomed. That model is simply not sustainable any more. Either change the model or go bust. Pick one.
- 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 ]