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]/
[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim
tim at treestle.com
Fri Feb 12 11:22:42 CET 2016
I agree too. I'd also like to point out that people should really read the existing (last /8) policy before responding to the thread. Some of the comments were discussed back when it was implemented, the conclusion of which is essentially summed up in Denis's response below. This discussion is about closing a loophole, not opening it up further. -Tim On 12/02/2016 11:04, Denis Fondras wrote: >> This same rule applies now: you cannot have more than a /22 from the >> RIPE NCC, so some other "white area ISP" can have a /22 next year. >> > I totally agree. The mission of RIPE is to allow new entrants at the best > conditions. > If you already are in business and need more IPv4, there is a market. If it > is too expensive for you, that's unfortunate. Perhaps your business-model > needs some improvement. > > Denis >
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]