Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Marco, > On 22 Sep 2017, at 15:55, Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hello Tim, > > On 2017-09-22 15:39:01 CET, Tim Chown wrote: >> There’s an argument to track and follow policies implemented elsewhere, and >> keep in step with those. LACNIC h

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi, > On 22 Sep 2017, at 13:56, Anna Wilson wrote: > > Hi Ray, > >> On 22 Sep 2017, at 12:04, Jetten Raymond wrote: >> >> Hi Anna, >> >> I saw some calculations that with the current policy it would be 4-5 years, >> to run completely out,

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 11:11, Daniel Suchy wrote: > > > > Even standardisation of IPv6 was quite slow in some details - we had to > wait 18 years for RFC 8200... But that rally wasn’t a major change in any way from RFC2460, modulo the few errata that had already been applied

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 05:50, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote: > >>> At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free >>> pool in RIPE's hands? >> >> There’s http:/

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 08:18, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > when v4 runout forces folk to put /28s in frnt of nats, the folk with > shiny shoes will have a little chat with senior leadership, and they'll > cough up the bucks to hold the routes. history repeats. Doesn’t the ARIN

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

> On 21 Sep 2017, at 13:33, Aled Morris wrote: > > On 21 September 2017 at 12:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE > NCC > to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have

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

> On 21 Apr 2016, at 11:38, Stepan Kucherenko wrote: > > There is also a problem with IPv6 roll-outs that it's usually (almost > always?) bigger guys, but smaller companies will lag behind for years if not > decades. Small incentive for small companies to keep up ? Not true

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

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 12:36, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 16:09, Tim Chown wrote: > >> As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new >> venture v6 should be

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

be at the heart of what you’re doing. Tim > On 15/04/16 12:21, Tim Chown wrote: >>> On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:02, Adrian Pitulac <adr...@idsys.ro> wrote: >>> >>> but from statistics and from my point of view, ARIN depletion of pools, >>> result

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

> On 15 Apr 2016, at 06:48, Riccardo Gori wrote: > there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption. Really? Tim

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

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 15:50, remco van mook > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks >> another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business >>

Re: [address-policy-wg] {Disarmed} Complaint and future of the APWG.

Hi, As a casual reader of this list, I would say that a) there is nothing to be gained from mudslinging about past behaviours wrt IPv4 address acquisition/trading (if illegal things have happened, that’s for the authorities to investigate, and not for this list...) b) as a community we should

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)

Hi, On 12 May 2015, at 14:18, Jan Ingvoldstad frett...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Mathew Newton mathew.newton...@official.mod.uk mailto:mathew.newton...@official.mod.uk wrote: Hi Jan, Hi again, Matthew, and thanks for answering. -Original Message-