Hi all
I support this proposal
+1
From my background as Chair of the Swiss IPv6 Council and many years of working
with large organizations such as enterprises and governments, I know that
basing an allocation size on number of users and size of network is not
sufficient and does not allow
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
Policy
is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
Hi Vesna! Nice to hear from you.
You say that this is about governmental networks but that is not
actually mentioned in the proposal itself. If you are correct then the
proposal should be changed to explicitly mention that. If you are not
correct then this just leaves more discretion to RIPE,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Infinity Telecom SRL i...@infinitytelecom.ro
wrote:
Hello,
This is the question: Could any of you have your company survive with
only a /22 (and 10-15 $/IP extra, 256/512/1024 packs towards 15$/IP) ?
Ok, I'll bite, as you seem to have a hangup about
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A proposed change to the RIPE Document IPv6 Address Allocation and
Assignment Policy now is open for discussion.
The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6
allocations larger
Hi William,
-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf
Of William Waites
Sent: 11 May 2015 09:20
You say that this is about governmental networks but that is not
actually mentioned in the proposal itself. If you are correct
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
published.
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote:
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01
and the draft document at:
+1
-Message d'origine-
De : address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] De la part
de Andre Keller
Envoyé : lundi 11 mai 2015 15:31
À : address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Objet : Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
Published (Alignment of
Someone has made the comments on this article from ripe labs. Any comments from
the community? How can this kind of thing happen in the ripe? Prior to the
ripe depletion, it is even hard for my org to apply for a /19. Now my org can
only apply for a /22!
So as to keep low profile to have
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Slightly off-track, but you made me curious. Given the number of /29s and
/32s available in FP001, and the potential numbers of LIRs in the future
(like, things explode and we'll see 100.000 LIRs) - where do you see the
Hi,
On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015.
I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big
impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the
Am 11.05.15 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt:
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
published.
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
As Nick states, I'd be interested to see a real life addressing plan
which needed more than this amount of bit space. I'd actually be
interested to see a real life addressing plan that needed a /32 bit
address space, where the need isn't constructed
* Richard Hartmann richih.mailingl...@gmail.com [2015-05-11 16:33]:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote:
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of
Transfer
Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
Strongest
Hi Nick,
-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: 11 May 2015 14:08
On 11/05/2015 11:10, Gert Doering wrote:
I see /32 as default, up to /29 if you ask as very reasonable middle
ground...
/29
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:14:24PM +0200, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
This has already happened before (remember 2007-01?) and it happens
with every change of policy..
2007-01 is a good example of why ex post facto changes are a bad
idea. This was controversial then and is still controversial
Hi all!
I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation.
Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of
IPv4 blocks, I want retort:
today, 11.05.2015 have been allocated 6392 IPv4 from last /8
(last block is 185.99.220.0/22, 256/4=64, 64*99=6336, 6336+224/4=6392)
Hi all!
I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation.
Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of
IPv4 blocks, I want retort:
today, 11.05.2015 have been allocated 6392 IPv4 from last /8
Last block is 185.99.220.0/22, 256/4=64, 64*99=6336, 6336+224/4=6392
If
Exuse me about two same emails. It was bag in my client
2015-05-11 23:22 GMT+03:00, Sergey Stecenko stecenkos...@gmail.com:
Hi all!
I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation.
Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of
IPv4 blocks, I want retort:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
This is borderline to bad faith.
ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list,
so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of
acting in bad faith.
Yours sincerely,
Sascha Luck
Hi Sacha,
On 11/05/15 19:00, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
In light of this, I will oppose this proposal. For what that will
turn out to be worth.
if I understand correctly, you are opposing to the RIPE NCC's planned
implementation of this proposal (under the terms and understanding of
this Impact
That potential two years grace period is an invitation to all IP grabbers
to grab more.
Richard
Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
23 matches
Mail list logo
