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 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Sun May 22 12:58:50 CEST 2016
* Gert Doering
> OTOH, I'm not sure if I see a pressing need here - LIRs that haven't
> asked for their /22 yet because they don't need it might just never
> show up, because they don't need it...
Absolutely true.
However, in my opition it would be more about fixing a couple of
perception problems that leads to policy proposals like 2015-05:
- Complaints à la «it's unfair that the haves ("old LIRs") get to
request additional allocations while we have-nots ("new LIRs") do
not» will no longer have any merit.
- It'd make sure the NCC's allocation pool is really reserved for new
entrants. We often claim that it is, but currently that is only a
half-truth.
Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]