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 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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon Jun 20 10:04:33 CEST 2016
Hi, On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 08:43:45PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > Another "legitimate" case that will no longer be possible was an > argument what was given to me during the discussion of 2015-05: > A company becomes LIR because they need "some provider independent" > space (which today is limited to ALLOCATED PA) which usually equals to > "less than a /24 of actual need, but still a /24 for routing purposes". > They don't really need more than a /24 now and on short/medium term, and > they estimate that they will not need more than a second /24 (size chose > for routing purposes only) even in the longer term. Someone argued that > it would be legitimate and desirable for that LIR to put the remaining > /23 (considered not ever be a need) on the market. Did this became > non-legitimate over-night ? I would consider this also as a fringe case - legitimate according to the letter of the policy, but not according to the spirit. These /22s are not for trading. But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes to the IPv4 policy - the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly irresponsible way regarding *future* participants, while at the same time complaining that they are treated unfairly by the old LIRs - totally ignoring the fact that *without the foresight of these old LIRs* you wouldn't have any space at all today. This is not the way to do bottom-up policy making - "I want my cookie and I want it now, and I do not care for the greater good". Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/401b10f7/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]