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] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kai 'wusel' Siering
wusel+ml at uu.org
Wed May 29 18:47:34 CEST 2019
On 29.05.2019 17:45, Gert Doering wrote:
> IXPs say they need globally unique space, and they are the experts here.
The same was true some years back, when the mobile operators asked for some dozen /16s for their customers. They didn't get those blocks, they were forced to look for alternatives, they found alternatives. ("NATs are good. CGNs doubly so.")
Given the circumstances, for *any* request of "more v4 space for my use case" it is just and equitable to request a documented evidence the suggested soluion is the *only* way to accomplish the goal. I don't agree that it is the APWG chair's decision which request needs to be backed by facts and which isn't.
Regards,
-kai
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]