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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu Jun 16 18:17:48 CEST 2016
Tomasz Slaski wrote: [...] > Jim, please stop kidding. Do you know anyone, who returned > the addresses to RIPE? In my 25 year career in IT I have not met > anyone who did. I'm neither supporting nor opposing the proposed policy. However, I note that there are a number of cases where organizations with large blocks of IPv4 address space they no longer need have returned that space. Several /8s were returned to global pool of unallocated IPv4 address space in 2007 and 2008. More recently, Interop returned more than 99% of a /8 to ARIN: https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4968 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160616/e7e0be12/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]