the undifferentiated allocation pool.
Hi,
could you please elaborate on what this "undifferentiated 32-bit AS Number
pool" is?
I'm mainly curious if it means we'll deplete 16 bit ASNs (allocate from
the lowest available number)?
Thanks.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
--
To u
or something, could be
worth doing.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Gert Doering wrote:
So, please have a look and express your opinion - continued support, or
disagreement.
I support this.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
, the
longer people will procrastinate, and the more painful it becomes. /22 is
a good tradeoff between the different goals here. It was a good tradeoff
when it was implemented, I see it still being a good tradeoff 3 years from
now.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
ut forever.
The stone is bled dry, and that's just the way it is.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
-pool-graph
Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on
185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go?
To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see
any need to change anything.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
.
If we're actually exhausted then some people might get on with deploying
IPv6, I hear some people not deploying because they see that RIPE isn't
completely exhausted yet.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
at least take that idea to the current policy proposals,
that we don't talk about "LIRs who have received a post-exhaustion /22"
but instead talking about "LIRs containing..." What's happened in the past
is less interesting than current situation?
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care any more
if people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
te that ISPs in your
market aren't interested in Ipv6 deployment, but it's the only answer to
your question.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
of policies
that make things worse for the general population in that country.
Unfortunately, there is nothing RIPE can do to help these countries and
their goverments, because RIPE doesn't have huge blocks of addresses to
give out.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
-01
IPv4 stone is blead dry. Even if we doubled number of IPv4 addresses by
means of some unknown magic, it wouldn't buy is any significant amount of
time.
The solution is IPv6. There is no other way to fix this. Direct your
energy in that direction.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm
, I want to keep the last /8 for new future
entrants with current policy, not deplete quicker.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
treat recovered pool the same as last /8,
it's just treated as "addresses" so /10 is "/10 worth of adresses".
My goal is still to have IPv4 addresses according to this policy by 2020.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
and want them to officially be part of the
official discussion, they need to be brought to the mailing list.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
it to do what you want it to do.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
), not the ones
trading in the address space.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
.
The proposed change doesn't change this at all as far as I can tell.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
administrative loopholes in order to get themselves more IPv4 addresses
for instance through multiple LIRs and other methods, at least not
substantially under current market prices for IPv4 addresses.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
. If the community wanted it to work that way, the policy
would have been very differently worded.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to
the following:
The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22.
The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th
of September
months
before you can transfer the /24 out of it and close the LIR.
It seems you're exactly one of the (ab)users of the current policy and you
seem to think it's your right to continue with this. That's a valid
opinion, but it's not shared with most other people here.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson
).
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
25 matches
Mail list logo
