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] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Mon Aug 15 10:18:44 CEST 2022
In message <301e0ef8-ed15-67d3-d390-7bea8571c7cb at ripe.net>, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote: >On 15/08/2022 09:16, Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:10:49AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >>> What is the maximum size for current new IPv4 allocations in the RIPE >>> region? >> /24 "if there is something to distribute at all" > >Just to confirm what Gert said. > >For more information please feel free to check our website about IPv4 >https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4 > >as well the underlying RIPE policy which was published in November 2019 >https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#51 Thank you for the confirmation. Unfortunately, I remain rather mystified by how the following IPv4 blocks, and the current RIPE WHOIS records that pertain to them, comport with what you and Gert have just now told me. Perhaps there is something that I am missing (?) ORG-AS976-RIPE: 31.44.32.0/20 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:34Z 46.21.16.0/21 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:34Z 46.21.28.0/22 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:34Z 77.220.64.0/19 created: 2022-06-23T09:56:04Z 185.155.176.0/22 created: 2022-06-23T09:56:04Z 185.155.184.0/22 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:34Z 193.221.216.0/23 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:33Z 193.222.104.0/23 created: 2022-06-24T06:46:33Z Regards, rfg P.S. I would still be concerned, although perhaps a bit less concerned, if this organisation had not elected to place a fradulent and non-existant comnpany name into its public WHOIS organisation: record. I would however still remain befuddled by how this organisation managed to be assigned some 72 times as much IPv4 address space as anybody else could get, all apparently less than 2 months ago. But there must be a reasoable explanation, I suppose.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Maximum size for current IPv4 allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]