Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Goodmoring Remco, I read that you don't want to comment more about 2015-05. I'll respect you and I won't wait for an answer and we can leave everything for a quick chat in Copenhagen but I have to leave my comment on your analisys. In your example you suppose that every LIR under a /20 will

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 14:52, Peter Hessler wrote: > The 23.128/10 block is ONLY for /24-/28 allocations. These are not A /24 every 6 months (provided that conditions keep being fulfilled). Because less than /24 is pretty much useless. > intended as general purpose IP blocks, and are ONLY

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 21:53, Remco van Mook wrote: > OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers: > > Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1) > Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1) I'm OK with that. > New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3) > Budgeted membership

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On 2016 May 11 (Wed) at 14:42:02 +0200 (+0200), Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: :On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 08:53, Gert Doering wrote: : :> Would you have preferred the ARIN way? "Oops, we have reached :> exhaustion, nothing left, good buy to new entrants"? : :My understanding is that ARIN is not yet

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote: > Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to > 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than > half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) - > effectively this

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 08:53, Gert Doering wrote: > Would you have preferred the ARIN way? "Oops, we have reached > exhaustion, nothing left, good buy to new entrants"? My understanding is that ARIN is not yet "dry". There still is some space available within 23.128.0.0/10 under NRPM 4.10

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05

Jim Reid wrote: > Third, I think it’s unwise to have a firm rule on transfers. Though I > understand why you’ve suggested this: it’s meant to stop LIRs selling > off these extra addresses. For one thing, there can be valid reasons > for transferring space that don’t involve selling IPv4 addresses

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05

> On 11 May 2016, at 09:29, Enrico Diacci wrote: > > When an LIR can claim to have reached 4 (or 5) stars of RIPEness for IPv6 > may require an additional /22 (if you do not already have space equivalent > to a /20) stating its reasons for the new allocation with a project and >

[address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05

I try to go beyond the 2015-05: When an LIR can claim to have reached 4 (or 5) stars of RIPEness for IPv6 may require an additional /22 (if you do not already have space equivalent to a /20) stating its reasons for the new allocation with a project and proving to have it completed within one

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi, >>> What about those holding large space and changed the policy to be >>> triggered when reaced a last /8 and not before? >>> Looks like eating the chocolate top cover of the cake and leave the dry >>> part to the others. Here's your crumbs we are very respective. >> Would you have preferred

[address-policy-wg] making progress with 2015-05

> On 11 May 2016, at 08:53, Riccardo Gori wrote: > > Sander noticed there are people here that are confirming that a change is > accepted and someone else noticed that 2015-05 can be re-written or > re-invented to meet better the tasks > You as a chair should accept this and

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi Gert, Il 11/05/2016 08:53, Gert Doering ha scritto: Hi, On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:51:21AM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22". What about those holding large

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Arash, > On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash Naderpour wrote: > > Remco, <> > > Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the > discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using > that. > you can't have it both

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Riccardo Gori wrote: > > Il 11/05/2016 09:02, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: > > > > minor correction, it is a state that was reached once IANA allocated the > last /8 to all the RIR's, and it affect _all_ address space after that point. > > > > >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Il 11/05/2016 09:02, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto: On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Randy Bush wrote: you may find reading the actual last /8 policy informative. Last /8 is not really get affected by this policy. - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi, On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:51:21AM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: > > Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years with > > no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22". > What about those holding large space and changed the policy to be > triggered when