> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 > allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) > IPv6 *at no extra cost*. > > I clearly think this is not a good thing. Why? What actual problems is this alleged stockpiling causing? Is there any v6 stockpiling taking place? Why would anyone need/want to stockpile v6 when the *lowest* allocation they’d get gives them orders of magnitude more address space than they could ever hope to use. I think the onus is on you to provide a clear problem statement before making policy proposals. It’s not at all clear there’s an actual problem to solve.
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... David Farmer via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Aleksey Bulgakov
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... Daniel Karrenberg
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-policy-wg... Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-polic... Jim Reid
- Re: [address-policy-wg... Jim Reid
- Re: [address-policy-wg... Jacob Slater
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Mikael Abrahamsson via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Jim Reid
- Re: [address-policy-wg] st... Kai 'wusel' Siering
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Sebastian Wiesinger
- Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpi... Daniel Suchy via address-policy-wg
