Hi Petr, Besides the fact that all discussion and input on the named policy is currently out-side the discusssion phase.. So the input can't be taken into account ...
Could you provide insight in which universe the RIPE NCC is still allocating /20's ? I am aware that the IPRA's are trying to aggregate connected prefixes if possible .. Is that what you are trying to do in getting a /20 ? ... Open 4 or more lir's and issue the tickets for the IPv4 /22's at the same time in hope to get them allocated together from the same block ... So you can aggregate them after a transfer or M&A ? What you are saying here .... IS the reason why the community is looking at this policy proposal ... If you need more than a /22 the only way is to get this from the market ... I wonder why people still think that they can or will get IPv4 from the Ripe NCC ... Erik Bais > Op 25 apr. 2015 om 18:13 heeft Petr Umelov <[email protected]> het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi everybody. > > Let me tell some words about current proposal. > > Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not > 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next > variants: > 1. /20 > 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets > 3. /22, /21, /22 > > There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the > tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 > x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. > And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have > to transfer such blocks and make new request. > > If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have > material losses. So I can't support this proposal. > > -- > Kind regards, > Techincal Director FastTelecom > Petr Umelov >
