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] 2023-01 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 New Policy Proposal (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Fearghas Mckay
fearghas at gmail.com
Fri Feb 17 01:38:04 CET 2023
Hi > On 8 Feb 2023, at 17:35, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote: > > If I recall correctly, the original motivation of the IXP policy was to allow IXP to get space, even if they did not otherwise qualify to become an LIR. This was so that they could maintain independence from LIR peering at the IXP. As the chair of the EIX-WG at the time which generated the policy, rather than AP, the rationale was about ensuring that there would be space for IXP fabric as v4 ran out. That was the driver, not the inability of IXPs to afford LIR membership etc. Only IPv4 run out. FWIW I do not support this policy as written and expecting starter IXPs to go to the open market is not the kind of policy that is my understanding of the RIPE way. Thanks f -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20230216/8f33dc2c/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 New Policy Proposal (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]