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] Support for 2016-03 v2.0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0
- 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 ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Sun Jun 19 12:02:10 CEST 2016
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Daniel Suchy <danny at danysek.cz> wrote: > Hello, > Hello, > > Do we really want do block new organisations with new allocations, but > allow old (happy) one to do anything with addresses tehy have...? That's > not fair. > I'm afraid that "fair" in that regard, is impossible to achieve. > There're organisations, which have large allocations and they're > sometimes not taking care - they have enough IPv4 addresses, nothing is > pushing them to implement IPv6, or save address space by implementation > of some NAT solution. If they decide to sell their business, policy will > allow that - but, if "new" resource holder will try similar thing, > policy will ban then? > No, the new policy does not ban selling their business (merger/acquisition). My point is simple - there should be ONLY ONE POLICY - independent on > time of allocation. Such policy must limit not only new LIRs (using > addresses from last /8), but also old LIRs holding addresses from old > allocations. > Why do you want to do that? > > And if we really want to reclaim some address space, we should review > current allocations - in terms of current situation in IPv4 world. > > How do you propose to go about that? -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160619/74e839cb/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0
- 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 ]