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] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Denis Fondras
ripe at liopen.fr
Thu Jun 9 11:43:09 CEST 2016
> These would be correct if applied to End Users, unfortunately your > proposition is applying to LIRs. > > So as I understand it, 2016-03 results in making a LIR's dimension > void, e.g. to assimilate a LIR to an End User. > > So I oppose this proposal. > I fully agree with you but it seems some think that prefixes from last-/8 is not intended to be used and distributed as we used to. Which I can comprehend, because as LIR we need to understand and make our end-users understand there is no IPv4 available anymore. Is there an official statement on this point ? Can LIR from the last-/8 distribute addresses to customers or only use it on CGN ?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]