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] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Feb 4 15:07:32 CET 2019
> On 4 Feb 2019, at 13:58, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk at ripe.net> wrote: > > The question before us is: What is the minimum useful allocation? Well yes Daniel. But how long does that discussion last? Perhaps 5-10 years from now we’ll be debating policies on how the NCC allocates /30s or /31s of v4. :-) Even if the NCC is left with fragments of v4, it may well be impractical to allocate them. Kind of like how the final reserves in a mine or an oil well get left in the ground because it’s not financially viable to extract them.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]