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 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Tue May 17 15:35:38 CEST 2016
> On 17 May 2016, at 14:52, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg at c4inet.net> wrote: > > So it puts new entrants at a competitive disadvantage to existing LIRs? It has been that way ever since SRI first started doling out Class A, B and C blocks in the 1980s. No matter what the prevailing policy might be, new LIRs are by definition going to be disadvantaged because the NCC and the RIR system more generally has a far smaller (and almost empty) pool of IPv4 address space to allocate from. Get over it. We can’t conjure up an infinite supply of IPv4 space to give everyone at least as much as they think they need. The only question now is to decide what’s the best or least worst to share that pain of distributing what’s left.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]