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] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Thu Jul 18 08:25:40 CEST 2019
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:13:05PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, > > You opinion can be diverse, of course, but it is clear that I'm not alone. > > I fail to see much support for your well-formulated problem statement. So count me as one of the supporters. I see at least two extra advantages of legacy space being converted to "regular" IP space: 1. RIPE-705 can be enforced on those entities. [1] 2. This close all possible loopholes similar to the one exploited in the past and presented by Janos during October 2016 GM under agenda point 6. [1] Look at two random examples: 151.80.183.140/30 and 192.94.58.0/24. In both cases I don't think that those companies were legacy at all. Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre Gliwice, Poland
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]