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] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Tue May 10 16:46:15 CEST 2016
On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 14:16, Peter Hessler wrote: > This was called "Provider Independent" and for IPv4, it was killed off > some years ago. Yes, except that the need for "provider independent" IP blocks did not disappear. Only the "ASSIGNED PI" status for new blocks did. The "ALLOCATED PA" is a good enough substitute for those needing it. Then there's still the "multihome with ASSIGNED PA phenomenon" and the "don't need multihoming, just a /24" (actually anything from /23 to /26 may qualify). For the second one, if done by the LIR it may actually decrease the depletion rate (saving months lost with extra allocations). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]