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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Fri Feb 8 15:47:34 CET 2013
On 07/02/2013 20:05, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message <CAArzuosa4zGis9B64Ky8OTh6Wc1EM+qxcqTZYgCsL3=U_3FBEw at mail.gmail.com> > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > >> And I would be very interested to see just how much v6 space they have. >> >> Ron - noticed some? > > Only a tiny amount. I'm sorry, but I can't talk about that just yet. > >> And please don't even tell me there's enough v6 space for everybody so we >> needn't worry about IP allocation at all, that is what we all thought back >> when class A, B and C addresses were being handed out, so we might as well >> learn from our past experience as from anything else. > > Although I appreciate the responses from both Suresh and also Gert Doering > to my question about whether or not any policy exists allowing RIPE NCC > to reclaim IPv4 space that is being squandered, both replies seem to start > from the assmption that the proper way to judge whether a robust reclamation > policy is warranted or not is to perform a simple cost/benefit analysis, > where the "cost" aspect is _only_ that some IPv4 (or IPv6) address space is > wasted and not available for other uses. > > Personally, I think that this view is too narrow, and I am frankly a bit > surprised to find such a view prevalent on and within the mailing list > of a purported "anti abuse" working group. > > Does the charter of this group include, or conversely, fail to include > that the group can, should, and will advocate for the denial of resources > _generally_ to those who abuse the Internet? The reclamation of resources is not specifically stated in the charter. Of course, should the WG will it, the charter can always be re-examined. However the group has had multiple interactions with the NCC in regards to the closing of LIRs and the reclamation of resources. I think Gert referenced Athina Fragkouli's emails and presentations to the WG on this matter. The slides from the presentation from RIPE61 are here: http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/281-Closure_of_LIRs_and_deregistration_of_resources_anti_abuse_aspects.pdf and the final document is here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-517 Brian
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]