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] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Remco van Mook
remco.vanmook at gmail.com
Wed May 11 09:47:54 CEST 2016
Arash, > On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com> wrote: > > Remco, <> > > Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using that. > you can't have it both ways - entitle me to my opinion and at the same time saying I'm not allowed to voice it if you don't like it. I stand by what I said, and I can't help being a bit surprised that it took you almost a month to respond to this part of my statement. > > >>. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. > > We have the same situation with the “new-entrants” joined 2012 (before we reached to last /8) and the ones joined 2 years after that. > > >>The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. > > This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched. > Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more than half, no? Remco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160511/cccc8ae5/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160511/cccc8ae5/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]