Dear group members
Hi !
I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop
making financial profit out of IPv4.
First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers,
last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to
IPv6 in 5 years… So do you
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.br /
Yes, it is, and it has been duly considered.
Please turn off HTML in mails to this list, and do not top quote.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:47:19PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for and against the
proposal?
This is such a good idea that Sander did it two weeks ago in the conclusion
summary when he declared rough consensus.
Your point being?
Gert
Really?
I don't see any references to that matter in the letter from Sander.
29.06.2015, 22:49, Gert Doering g...@space.net:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.br /
Yes, it is, and it has been duly
Dear Petr,
But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved.
Yes, but technically it will be the same. You will transfer this IPs in 2
years and all parties will be happy. You will have IPs. It will stop creating
LIRs just for transfers.
--
Aleksei
29.06.2015 23:23 -
I mean detailed analysis of pros and cons.
For example, why wasn't it separately mentioned about MA as a BIG hole?
29.06.2015, 22:50, Gert Doering g...@space.net:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:47:19PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for
On 06/29/2015 08:16 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers,
last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to
IPv6 in 5 years…
Always loving a good IPv6 joke in the evening :-)
-dominik
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:42:20PM +0300, Manager wrote:
It's better to make ipv4 easy to get. Lets say give new lir /21 but not /22.
This can be done, but is outside the scope of *this* proposal (and people
are discussing it, so you might see something along that lines, or not) -
so that
One more argument.
For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that
multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs)
But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to 185.100.108.0/22
owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22.
But LIR
(all hats off)
If you design your network infrastructure so it requires a /21 to work,
when a /22 is all you're likely to get, the problem is not the policy
giving you a /22.
And as always, if you don't like a policy, propose a new one yourself.
Remco
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53 PM Gert
Arguments, please.
29.06.2015, 23:53, Gert Doering g...@space.net:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
One more argument.
For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk
that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have
In 2 years the second block can be in black list and it is better to receive it earlier23:28, 29 июня 2015 г., "LeaderTelecom Ltd." i...@leadertelecom.ru:Dear Petr, But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. Yes, but technically it will be the same. You will
Hello!
Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for and against the proposal?
29.06.2015, 22:44, Gert Doering g...@space.net:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:34:32PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
Hi.br /br /The RIPE NCC receives /9 from IANA every 6 months
It does not.
And
Petr Umelov wrote:
Excuse me, /13.
I am afraid you have misunderstood the policy. The policy requires allocation
units defined as:
IPv4 allocation unit = 1/5 of Recovered IPv4 pool, rounded down to the next
CIDR (power-of-2) boundary.
with a /24 minimum.
The result is that unless the pool
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
One more argument.
For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that
multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs)
But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write
On 06/29/2015 08:16 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers,
last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to
IPv6 in 5 years…
Always loving a good IPv6 joke in the evening :-)
Btw, did anybody notice ARIN is down to
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:46:17PM +0430, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop
making financial profit out of IPv4.
new arguments, please
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet
Hi.The RIPE NCC receives /9 from IANA every 6 months that encreases IPv4 numbers. But this proposal tells contrary.Is it new argument?22:28, 29 июня 2015 г., Gert Doering g...@space.net:Hi,On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:46:17PM +0430, Shahin Gharghi wrote: I am seriously against this proposal, because
Agree, propousal is not good.
There ara lot of facts about it. If propousal will be accepted it s good idea
to publish current stats at public and compare situation after 6, 12, 24 months.
Becouse free ipv4 at ripe is growing.
It's better to make ipv4 easy to get. Lets say give new lir /21
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:34:32PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
Hi.br /br /The RIPE NCC receives /9 from IANA every 6 months
It does not.
And please, arguments like this will not stop abuse, this is not
going far enough, we have enough addresses and it's my good right
to make money out of
20 matches
Mail list logo
