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] 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 ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Thu Feb 7 09:14:39 CET 2019
Hi, Please see inline. On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Taras Heichenko wrote: > > >> On Feb 6, 2019, at 16:24, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In that case, IPv4 is "basically useless" from a business point of view. >> >> But that statement is provably false. >> >> Additionally, a lot of business is about providing services that are *not* connectivity-based, to a lot of customers. >> >> Additionally, a lot of connectivity services can be provided via NAT. >> >> And so on. > > If I am right we talk about resources that can be obtained by new LIR. If a LIR already has some > IPv4 block it cannot claim to get some other block from RIPE NCC according to the policy. And > what does the LIR status give to the LIR? It gives possibility to get IP addresses. So a LIR is been > registering to obtain IPs. Anything else? And keep it. And access NCC services like certification (RPKI), training, ... > So a new LIR must pay $1400 annually to have ghostly > possibility to obtain IPv4 addresses. May be. Later. After years (multiply by $1400). Don't forget about "keeping it". If you only pay on the 1st year, the resources go back into the pool (de-registered) if the 2nd year is not payed... it's called "maintenance". :-) > It has not these > addresses and his/her busyness will suffer from lack of IPv4 addresses. As for me in this case I > would not wait IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC. Either I make busyness only on IPv6 or I buy IPv4 > addresses on the market (after this I cannot claim to get addresses from RIPE NCC, right?). My interpretation is that you could. Currently, a /22 per LIR account... > What are we talking about? Show me please use case for participant of > the waitlist. Who is he/she? Potentially ORGs that wish to be independent (IPv4 addressing wise) from their transit providers, also allowing them to peer at IXPs, ... The easy part is IPv6, which doesn't involve any waiting list -- it's just a matter of becoming a LIR or getting service from one. :-)) Cheers, Carlos > > -- > Best regards > > Taras Heichenko > tasic at hostmaster.ua
- 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 ]