I agree with Jordi,
Even simplest changes takes too long at RIPE NCC (and other RIRs).
Nikolay
On 04.05.2018 18:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> This is a grammar details that doesn’t affect the policy proposal
> content. I’m fine either way, but of
to
reserve pool from the closed companies and etc.
For people who always care about IPv4 reserved the answer is next -
there big Ipv4 reserved space "for future use" according RFC, my opinion
that people should look in that direction. I support it too.
NTX NOC
Yury Bogdanov
On 21.09.
til
>>> the runout occurs. We cannot "measure" its benefits until the runout
>>> occurs, and we can then count how many new entrants did get a tiny
>>> portion of (new, never used before) IPv4 address space.
>>
>> --
>> Jack
>> Net/sys admin
>>
>> More details about KWAOO can be found at:
>> https://as24904.kwaoo.net/
>>
--
Jack
Kwaoo noc
More details about KWAOO can be found at:
https://as24904.kwaoo.net/
Maybe the right path is to find some way to allocate those addresses to
real new entrants only
Perhaps limitations like only one allocation:
- per LIR
- per legal entity
- per physical person
- per "network", "activity" or whatever, & based on how you should have
your own resources
Anything that
obviously that its not.
Yuri@NTX NOC
Sent from my Mi phoneOn Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl>, Oct 26, 2016 1:06 PM wrote:Hi Yuri,
A bit of quick feedback:
> 1) RIPE has reserved space/free pool that it's also will be used under
> current polices for LIRs, the
overtaking between different countries, problem still exists)
So what do we select?
I will be thankful for feedback.
Yuri@NTX NOC
On 19.10.2016 11:05, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking
> Dow
On 20.10.2016 12:30, Gert Doering wrote:
This is a separate discussion, and should not be done under the Subject:
of 2016-03.
Folks, I understand that e-mail is hard. But give it a try.
I know and thus didn't start a discussion about the topic, I just suggested it...probably by reviving the
-1 for the proposal
If anything, better implement a policy which forces the (big players) to return their (huge amounts) of unused space, as
briefly discussed a year ago:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-October/010768.html
Greetings!
Also -1.
I think the current policy that prevents transfers for 24 months is more
then enough.
There no need to change anything and make live more complex, hard and worse.
We already have problems with merges when ripe start to request registry
updates and that makes merges between
+1
On 19.06.2016 0:38, Daniel Suchy wrote:
> Do we really want do block new organisations with new allocations, but
> allow old (happy) one to do anything with addresses tehy have...? That's
> not fair.
+1
>There're organisations, which have large allocations and they're
>sometimes not taking
If you will look into the future - all last 185 will be FINAL.
And all LIRs will have to return the space or use it and pay to RIPE for
usage even they work as with PIs as PI.
reserved space also will be FINAL.
But then after some due to space exchange under ripe more and more space
will become
I oppose this proposal too.
1) it limits in rights all new LIRs. As I told in previous discussions
LIR stats show the same rate of new LIR registration (250-300 LIRs avg)
per month. It's about 40% of 185 is free and that means it will be about
7000 new LIRs in it. That will be enough for 2 years,
Not correct. My opinion is that all IPs space should be completely free
for all members. It's like letters in the alphabet. You should not pay
for letters, you should not pay for your unique name+surname (symbols
that allow to identify you like IP address numbers).
So to allow progress to come in
v6.
> It's just not that difficult. You just need to develop a
> stepwise approach.
> A one-shot would probably fail.
>
> -- Alex
>
>
>
>
> Am 11.06.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Gert Doering <g...@space.net
>
On 11.06.2016 21:56, Peter Hessler wrote:
> many operating systems hard-code that range as
> invalid network space.
Could you give any OS examples?
I looks to my Juniper docs and see
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.3/topics/topic-map/martian-addresses.html
It's not allowed by
Dear all,
As we see ISPs and community would like to have more IPv4 space in use.
I would like to ask a question what do people think about other side of
IPv4 numeration space. Because we have in IPv4 a lot of addresses not in
use at all but that space could be easy used.
240.0.0.0/4
Am 21.10.2015 um 23:00 schrieb Gert Doering:
>
> (And there would still never be sufficient IPv4, so I think that's why
> the community decided a few years ago to not bother going there - we've
> discussed this at RIPE meetings every now and then, and decided to better
> focus on making good IPv6
Am 21.10.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Gert Doering:
>
> Well, the most important reason was that we can't stop transfers from
> occuring (people will find ways...)
>
Why not? RIPE is the official register and has to act on each transfer. Of
course some might "lease" their space
instead, but this puts
Am 21.10.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Gert Doering:
>
> These are *allocations* and not assignments, and there has never been such
> a policy for allocations. Repeat: there is no policy that mandates return
> of unused allocations, and no mandate from the community for the NCC to go
> out and pester
Am 21.10.2015 um 12:40 schrieb Ciprian Nica:
>
> Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new
> entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate
> according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4
> resources.
>
Imo the transfer
Am 21.10.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Randy Bush:
>> Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves
>
Most probably only for those who make a living out of this transfer business ;)
Corin
Am 21.10.2015 um 14:20 schrieb Ciprian Nica:
> From theese, the top 1% PA resource holders (117 organisations) have
> allocations totalling 363,535,872 IPs out of the total 575,180,544
> ALLOCATED PA IPs in RIPE region. (that is 63.20%)
>
> If the remaining 99% percent would fully deploy IPv6
Nothing bad in the things when people need IPs and get them.
IPs should cost nothing. It's just numbers. The luck of IPs - it's the
RIPEs falt I guese.
As far as we see a lot of IPs are not routed and not used. But some
small companies own a lot of IPs space never realy used.
Another one trick
23 matches
Mail list logo
