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] 2019-05 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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed May 29 19:41:33 CEST 2019
Hi, On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 06:47:34PM +0200, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: > 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.") As far as I know, everybody who presented "documented need" *did* get their blocks. At least, this has always been the IPv4 policy as soon as there was space to allocate - and there has never been a clause "for this-and-that access technology, you can't have space". Neither for DSL, nor cable, nor for mobile. If mobile providers decided to not follow this route because they found it too complicated, or too cumbersome to document what some considered trade secrets and went with CGNAT instead - that's certainly their own decision, but was never mandated by policy. > 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. Since you've run an IXP yourself in the past, you should know the technical requirements quite well. So I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190529/99f8394f/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]