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] stockpiling IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Wed Oct 28 14:16:43 CET 2020
> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*. > > I clearly think this is not a good thing. Why? What actual problems is this alleged stockpiling causing? Is there any v6 stockpiling taking place? Why would anyone need/want to stockpile v6 when the *lowest* allocation they’d get gives them orders of magnitude more address space than they could ever hope to use. I think the onus is on you to provide a clear problem statement before making policy proposals. It’s not at all clear there’s an actual problem to solve.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]