On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Leo Bicknell <[email protected]> wrote:
> In a message written on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:46:52AM +0100, Stephen > Wilcox wrote: > > > https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/clarification-on-reallocated-ipv4-address-space-related-to-dutch-police-order > > From the article: > > ] The address space was quarantined for six weeks before being returned to > ] the RIPE NCC's available pool of IPv4 address space. It was then > ] randomly reallocated to a new resource holder according to normal > ] allocation procedures. > ] > ] As the RIPE NCC nears IPv4 exhaustion, it will reduce the quarantine > ] period of returned address space accordingly to ensure that there is no > ] more IPv4 address space available before the last /8 is reached. The > ] RIPE NCC recognises that this shortened quarantine could lead to > ] routability problems and offers its members assistance to reduce this. > > While I understand that in the face of IPv4 exhaustion long quarantine > periods are probably no longer a good idea, I think 6 weeks is > shockingly short. I also think to blanket apply the quarantine is > a little short sighted, there are cases that need a longer cooling > off period, and this may be one of them. > > I think the RIPE membership, and indeed the policy making bodies > of all RIR's should look at their re-allocation policies with this > case in mind and see if a corner case like this doesn't present a > surprising result. Correct me if I am wrong, but with RIPE's pool nearing exhaustion (in as little as 3 weeks, depending upon who you ask and how you count) isn't this sort of a moot point? I suppose this block could have been moved to the back of the list instead of randomly re-allocated, but would a few more weeks really have helped? /TJ
