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 ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue Jul 23 23:03:57 CEST 2019
"e.g. geographic association" -- really...?????? Cheers, Carlos On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg wrote on 22/07/2019 14:26: >> IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false >> dilemma here. > > there's no false dichotomy. > > Non legacy address space falls under various policies e.g. geographic > association and being subject to high RIR costs. These policies are what > causes legacy address space to cost more than RIR address space on the > address market. > > If a legacy block is threatened with being converted from something more > valuable to something less valuable, then people will avoid the RIR transfer > route and we'll end up with less accurate registry info. > > Nick > >
- 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 ]