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] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Thu Sep 28 08:56:24 CEST 2017
Hi All, I oppose this proposal. My reasons, or at least most of them, have explained by other people during the last week: - maintaining a lack of incentive for IPv6 deployment ("still have some IPv4") - forcing desegregation, as if the problem is not bad enough already, and possibility to make things even worse (by creating new pretext for "longer than /24 in GRT"). I would also add some other reasons: - community's duty/responsibility for future generations : apart what it has already been discussed (get v4 on the market, get it from upstream, or even "really need to get v4 ?"), we are representing here the RIP*E* community, with limited geographical scope. However, the policy is quite lax at the moment concerning the out-of-region use of resources, basically allowing an out-of-region entity to get resources with a sole promise to use *some* of them in-continent. - this brings us to the next point : with RIPE region being for the moment the second-richest RIR (v4-wise) and the lax rules regarding out-of-region use, I would not like RIPE NCC to become the world's "last resort" registry for v4 resources (or any other resources for that matter). And if I were to agree with the proposal (which is not the case right now), I would say that some thresholds should be used. Like /10 or /11 available for /23 allocations and /12 available for /24. Under no circumstance /24 now. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]